Re: Searching for an editor...
Tom <tom@abwaerts.be> writes:
> 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". :-)
If mouse control, menus, tool bars, images in buffers, and being built
with a widget toolkit (often Xaw) doesn't qualify, you'll have to be a
bit more specific.
It's true that the main text area doesn't use any toolkit's standard
text editing widget. That's not uncommon, I don't think
OpenOffice.org does either. For that matter, Netscape doesn't really
use _any_ standard toolkit, yet it's considered graphical.
If the fact that it doesn't qualify as graphical is a big reason
you'd avoid one of the most capable editors there are, the developers
would probably like to know what they're missing so that they can
address it.
(And yes, as someone else mentioned, the CVS version cab be built
against GTK. Hopefully, there will be a release someday....)
--
Alan Shutko <ats@acm.org> - I am the rocks.
It takes leather balls to play rugby.
Reply to: