On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 07:43:33PM +0200, Tom wrote: > [Sunday 19 October 2003 19:09] John Hasler: > > > > To start with, it should be graphical, so vim, emacs and the like > > > are no option to me... > > > > What do you mean by graphical? Emacs has menus, icons, cut&paste > > with the mouse, mouse control of the cursor, etc. What is it that > > people mean by a "graphical" editor? > > Well... Built with widgets? :-s > > Somehow, I expected this reply. It's more of a look-n-feel thing. I > don't mind console apps, but for some purposes, I like the "graphical" > approach better. It's not (only) about being able to control things > using the mouse etc. > > I understand the point about Emacs being as "graphical" as anything else > in a certain way, but I can't believe *you* don't understand what I > meant with "graphical". :-) It's hard to understand what you mean by that. I mean I compile my emacs to use GTK2 and it can show images (used by preview-latex), and can play a nice game of tetris so to me it's graphical... Bijan -- Bijan Soleymani <bijan@psq.com> http://www.crasseux.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature