On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 06:08:11PM +0100, Reuben Thomas wrote: > On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, Nicolas Duboc wrote: > > > I'm not completely convinced that Zile can be considered as an > >alternative for emacs but I'm going to ask to emacsen maintainers. > > I nearly wrote this too, but then reconsidered: it certainly is (or aims > to be) a strict subset, and if subsetting is allowed in alternatives (as > seems to be the case with nvi) then zile fits the bill. But maybe it's > too small a subset...
In nvi it's more like supersetting (nvi is a clone of the original vi, then vim et al extended it). But it seems there's a grey area here: which of the candidates in an alternatives system defines the common denominator? My opinion is that an emacs user in a bare-bones system (like the d-i rescue system, or an just installed system where you have to edit some files before you get network) would feel reasonably -although perhaps not completely- comfortable if typing "emacs" brought up some emacs-like editor, similarly to how a vim user would feel about typing "vi" and getting nvi. -- Robert Millan My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this address is only intended for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
