On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 04:22, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > Micha Feigin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sun, 2003-10-19 at 19:43, 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. > > > > > > > Its probably not what you are looking for, but on this note there is > > xemacs which is much more graphical, and there is also a build of xemacs > > based on gtk (don't know if 1 or 2) > > Not to start a flame war, but I don't think XEmacs is more graphical > than Emacs21 (Emacs20, yes, but not Emacs21).
I don't think I have used emacs21 but I don't remeber, so I can't tell. I also don't know how their gui comapare. Do you know the differences (main ones)? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
