Reuben Thomas wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Nick Hill wrote:
I expect users who use zile as I do are familiar with nano, pico, mc
etc. There are many reasons why I prefer Zile v1 as my primary text
editor
I can only apologise, then. That's not the niche I'm aiming to fill.
Have you considered usi
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Nick Hill wrote:
I expect users who use zile as I do are familiar with nano, pico, mc etc.
There are many reasons why I prefer Zile v1 as my primary text editor
I can only apologise, then. That's not the niche I'm aiming to fill.
Have you considered using Jed?
I concur Zile
Hello Reuben, thank you for the fast reply.
Reuben Thomas wrote:
For users wanting an easy-to-use editor with obvious up-front help, nano
and others provide a much better option than Zile with its bizarre key
bindings.
I expect users who use zile as I do are familiar with nano, pico, mc
etc. The
I have reverted to version 1.6 home-compiled as the v.2 build on
Debian does not have either minibuffer help (f10, f9) or syntax highlighting.
This is intentional. Syntax highlighting was buggy and considered bloat.
Minibuffer help was hard to maintain in its old form. Zile is not
intended to ha
Package: zile
Version: zile
Severity: normal
I have reverted to version 1.6 home-compiled as the v.2 build on
Debian does not have either minibuffer help (f10, f9) or syntax highlighting.
Minibuffer help is essential to those not familiar with the rather curious emacs
key bindings - this low th
5 matches
Mail list logo
