Hi, Nicolas Duboc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of Zile users asked me to register zile as an alternative to emacs > (#387164). I haven't tried zile, but I fail to see the point of such a request. If zile is significantly different from Emacs (and I guess it is, from what you wrote), I'd say there's no point in making users believe it is Emacs, by virtue of the alternative trick. That would be as confusing as useless. The argument given in the bug report: "Perhaps that way an emacs-like editor could be added to the base system (we already have nano/pico and vi)" does not convince me. Whether a program can enter the base system is completely unrelated to whether it's called Emacs or something else. If there is a good reason to include it there, well, fine, but it will be called zile. What is the problem? Of course, you can (an should, if it isn't already the case) make zile an alternative for editor(1), but that is not what you were discussing (neither does it appear in the bug report). -- Florent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
