Xref: utzoo comp.editors:39 comp.lang.lisp:569 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!botter!klipper!biep From: biep@cs.vu.nl (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) Newsgroups: comp.editors,comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: Structure vs. text editors Message-ID: <961@klipper.cs.vu.nl> Date: 14 Dec 87 16:29:36 GMT References: <487@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> <460@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> <499@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> Reply-To: biep@cs.vu.nl (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) Followup-To: comp.editors Organization: VU Informatica, Amsterdam Lines: 25 Summary: They aren't the same In article <487@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>, spe@SPICE.CS.CMU.EDU (Sean Engelson) writes: > With regard to the text vs structure editor controversy: text editors > can simulate structure editors easily (e.g. Emacs-like programmable > ones), but can structure editors simulate text editors?? In article <460@cresswell.quintus.UUCP>, pds@quintus.UUCP (Peter Schachte) writes: >Text editors CANNOT simulate structure editors. They can do a rather >feeble job of it. Text editors fall down when context information is >needed in order to decide what to do... In article <499@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> ralphw@IUS2.CS.CMU.EDU (Ralph Hyre) writes: >I disagree - a PROGRAMMABLE text editor can do anything you want. This is >because it's programmable. Whether you're happy with the performance or a >particular implementation is a separate, but important issue. Just try, in whatever programmable text editor you want, to edit the code of the editor itself, implementing new commands, and use each command in the same session immediately after its code is edited in. That's the difference between text and structure editors: whether the thing which is changing is "the real thing" or a text copy. -- Biep. (biep@cs.vu.nl via mcvax) To be the question or not to be the question, that is.