On 6/25/11, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> Progress update. You can edit things, but we don't have the B-tree in
> place yet, so I'm mostly working on the peripherals. I'll set up a
> repo very soon, though aside from my UTF-8 and display abstraction
> library I have little to show, yet.
>
> Here's a
Progress update. You can edit things, but we don't have the B-tree in
place yet, so I'm mostly working on the peripherals. I'll set up a
repo very soon, though aside from my UTF-8 and display abstraction
library I have little to show, yet.
Here's a little screenshot of the aesthetic I'm going for.
On 18 June 2011 09:34, garbeam wrote:
> The closest thing that came to my mind is this idea of seeing swk as a
> curses replacement. With this, the clients that are written with it,
> could also run perfectly fine in text mode, but if you have a
> graphical environment at hand, the implementation
Swk is based on a monospaced drawing area.. You just have a simple layout foo
plus the possibility to draw on sub buffers.
Which limiations do you see in swk?
I dont want a mainframe like ui. It will not be usable in touchscreen
interfaces for example.
One thing i mss in swk is the possibility
On 18 June 2011 09:44, Robert Ransom wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 09:34:42 +0100
> garbeam wrote:
>
>> On 18 June 2011 09:21, pancake wrote:
>> > The plan for swk was to move all drawing stuff to draw.c at some point. I
>> > will be happy to hear from what you are writing for.
>> > I stopped wri
On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 09:34:42 +0100
garbeam wrote:
> On 18 June 2011 09:21, pancake wrote:
> > The plan for swk was to move all drawing stuff to draw.c at some point. I
> > will be happy to hear from what you are writing for.
> > I stopped writing it because i didnt wanted to reimplement a text e
Hi pancake,
On 18 June 2011 09:21, pancake wrote:
> The plan for swk was to move all drawing stuff to draw.c at some point. I
> will be happy to hear from what you are writing for.
> I stopped writing it because i didnt wanted to reimplement a text editor
> stuff..
> But i think that conceptually
The plan for swk was to move all drawing stuff to draw.c at some point. I will
be happy to hear from what you are writing for.
I stopped writing it because i didnt wanted to reimplement a text editor stuff..
But i think that conceptually swk can fit well in different emvironments like
desktops
[2011-06-17 16:24] Martin Kühl
>
> Consider ex
> mode. How do you edit text in it? You don't have normal mode to help
> you, it only operates on "real" buffers, and you certainly don't have
> ex mode available. If "ex mode" were just a command buffer, you could
> use every piece of functionality
Quoth Rob:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 07:15:22AM -0800, Andrew Hills wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 6:29 AM, Nick wrote:
> > > But if we're thinking about
> > > breaking from the terminal, how would remote editing work?
> > > Some sort of ssh piping from / to the file on the server?
> > > I hav
On 17 June 2011 15:24, Martin Kühl wrote:
> If "ex mode" were just a command buffer, you could
> use every piece of functionality your editor provided, maybe even open
> another command buffer operating on the current one.
I'd not even considered this possibility, but you're right, it would
work
Just a few points from random things in this thread...
Someone said they want cut and paste to be put to tmux, X, etc...
I don't know that X or tmux have anything more than mark and copy to
clipboard. The rest is handled by the program in them.
Also the modeless second window isn't a bad idea, b
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Rob wrote:
> sshfs?
That's what I use, personally, but some people hate it, and it's not
always available. I prefer to see the network latency when I'm
actually reading or writing the file rather than seeing my editor
freeze, though, so I always use sshfs or scp.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 07:15:22AM -0800, Andrew Hills wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 6:29 AM, Nick wrote:
> > But if we're thinking about
> > breaking from the terminal, how would remote editing work?
> > Some sort of ssh piping from / to the file on the server?
> > I haven't thought this throu
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 07:15:22AM -0800, Andrew Hills wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 6:29 AM, Nick wrote:
> > But if we're thinking about
> > breaking from the terminal, how would remote editing work?
> > Some sort of ssh piping from / to the file on the server?
> > I haven't thought this throu
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 6:29 AM, Nick wrote:
> But if we're thinking about
> breaking from the terminal, how would remote editing work?
> Some sort of ssh piping from / to the file on the server?
> I haven't thought this through, but it's certainly a usecase
> which would be nice to cover.
scp
-
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:49:12AM -0400, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Nick wrote:
> > I haven't used it,
> > so don't know it's level of suckiness, but might cairo work?
>
>
> No.
Guessed that would be the case, just throwing it out there
;)
Connor's stuff tends to
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:49:12AM -0400, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Nick wrote:
> > I haven't used it,
> > so don't know it's level of suckiness, but might cairo work?
>
>
> No.
maybe check out animator: http://repo.hu/projects/animator/
disclaimers:
- i'm the aut
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Nick wrote:
> I haven't used it,
> so don't know it's level of suckiness, but might cairo work?
No.
--
# Kurt H Maier
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 03:16:00PM +0100, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> I'm writing a simple UI abstraction library, sort of like swk meets
> draw.c, in that it's completely platform-agnostic (so we can port it
> to other things than Xlib), but doesn't use widgets, you just draw
> things. This has the
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:07, markus schnalke wrote:
> [2011-06-15 14:47] Connor Lane Smith
>> On 15 June 2011 12:26, markus schnalke wrote:
> In vi, you enter insert mode, which you consider a real mode, with `i'
> and leave it with Escape. Likewise you enter ex mode (i.e. last-line
> mode), w
On 17 June 2011 10:07, markus schnalke wrote:
> I disagree with this analogy. Shift is no quasimode.
Yes it is.
> Likewise you enter ex mode (i.e. last-line
> mode), which you consider a quasimode
No, you misunderstand completely: I don't consider ex mode `quasi'.
What I said was that in my edi
[2011-06-17 09:54] David Tweed
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 9:51 AM, David Tweed wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Nicolai Waniek wrote:
> >> On 06/17/2011 10:37 AM, markus schnalke wrote:
> >>> For the same reason we want Unix's manifold toolchain and for the same
> >>> reason we want se
[2011-06-15 14:47] Connor Lane Smith
> On 15 June 2011 12:26, markus schnalke wrote:
>> What's the difference between a mode and a ``quasimode''?
>
> What's the difference between shift and caps lock?
I disagree with this analogy. Shift is no quasimode.
In vi, you enter insert mode, which you c
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 9:51 AM, David Tweed wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Nicolai Waniek wrote:
>> On 06/17/2011 10:37 AM, markus schnalke wrote:
>>> For the same reason we want Unix's manifold toolchain and for the same
>>> reason we want several programming languages: Because ``One
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Nicolai Waniek wrote:
> On 06/17/2011 10:37 AM, markus schnalke wrote:
>> For the same reason we want Unix's manifold toolchain and for the same
>> reason we want several programming languages: Because ``One fits all''
>> is an illusion.
>
>
> Then try to figure ou
On 06/17/2011 10:37 AM, markus schnalke wrote:
> For the same reason we want Unix's manifold toolchain and for the same
> reason we want several programming languages: Because ``One fits all''
> is an illusion.
Then try to figure out some basic tools that you can glue together to
form a fully fun
[2011-06-15 08:12] Peter John Hartman
>
> Why would you want several editors?
For the same reason we want Unix's manifold toolchain and for the same
reason we want several programming languages: Because ``One fits all''
is an illusion.
> The problem with vi and mutt is that
> they have all thes
hi,
> > Whether or not your keyboard has a page up/down key is a bit moot;
> > the point is that an editor should have under 10 keybindings: up,
> > down, left, right (C-hjkl), page up and down (C-uv), save and quite
> > (and search and search-and-replace (if you are feeling luxurious)).
> you are
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 02:18:01PM +0100, David Tweed wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 4:15 AM, David Tweed wrote:
> >> I'm going to assume that what you mean by "The editor doesn't need to
> >> do this." is "the computer user doesn't benef
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 4:15 AM, David Tweed wrote:
>> I'm going to assume that what you mean by "The editor doesn't need to
>> do this." is "the computer user doesn't benefit from having undo in
>> the editor rather than a version control";
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 4:15 AM, David Tweed wrote:
> I'm going to assume that what you mean by "The editor doesn't need to
> do this." is "the computer user doesn't benefit from having undo in
> the editor rather than a version control";
invalid assumption. what he meant was 'the EDITOR doesn't
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 09:27:38AM +0200, Mate Nagy wrote:
> hi,
> > Whether or not your keyboard has a page up/down key is a bit moot;
> > the point is that an editor should have under 10 keybindings: up,
> > down, left, right (C-hjkl), page up and down (C-uv), save and quite
> > (and search and
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Peter John Hartman
wrote:
>> > A simple editor probably shouldn't have any more keybindings than, say,
>> > surf; in fact one or two less: page up/down, up/right/left/down, and find.
>> > One doesn't need modes for that. If you want to do something wacked out to
>
hi,
> Whether or not your keyboard has a page up/down key is a bit moot;
> the point is that an editor should have under 10 keybindings: up,
> down, left, right (C-hjkl), page up and down (C-uv), save and quite
> (and search and search-and-replace (if you are feeling luxurious)).
you are wrong and
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Piotr Zalewa wrote:
> I use G2 as an emergency when I need to edit via SSH.
> it works well with vi.
I have a Motorola Droid on which I use vi over SSH on a regular basis.
It is extremely painless.
--Andrew Hills
On 06/15/11 21:24, Andrew Hills wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
* Andrew Hills [2011-06-15 11:51:17 -0400]:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Jon bradley wrote:
I own a keyboard that has no pgup/pgdn, or arrow keys.
Did you steal it from a museum?
you don't
plus mark, cut and paste.
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Peter John Hartman <
peterjohnhart...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 05:03:23PM -0400, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Andrew Hills
> wrote:
> > > That keyboard also doesn't have Ctrl... and I'm gues
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 05:03:23PM -0400, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Andrew Hills wrote:
> > That keyboard also doesn't have Ctrl... and I'm guessing no one here
> > will bother porting the editor to an Android app.
>
> Nokia n900/n810 have no pgdn or pgup, but do have
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Andrew Hills wrote:
> That keyboard also doesn't have Ctrl... and I'm guessing no one here
> will bother porting the editor to an Android app.
Nokia n900/n810 have no pgdn or pgup, but do have ctrl and arrows.
--
# Kurt H Maier
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> * Andrew Hills [2011-06-15 11:51:17 -0400]:
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Jon bradley wrote:
>> > I own a keyboard that has no pgup/pgdn, or arrow keys.
>>
>> Did you steal it from a museum?
>
> you don't have to go to a musem for th
* Andrew Hills [2011-06-15 11:51:17 -0400]:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Jon bradley wrote:
> > I own a keyboard that has no pgup/pgdn, or arrow keys.
>
> Did you steal it from a museum?
you don't have to go to a musem for that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T-Mobile_G1_launch_event_
> > A simple editor probably shouldn't have any more keybindings than, say,
> > surf; in fact one or two less: page up/down, up/right/left/down, and find.
> > One doesn't need modes for that. If you want to do something wacked out to
> > your file (like go to the third word on the 4th sentence and
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Jon bradley wrote:
> I own a keyboard that has no pgup/pgdn, or arrow keys.
Did you steal it from a museum?
--Andrew Hills
- Original message -
> > Still I wonder why you try so much to stay modeless. Modes are a real
> > advantage because each mode offers a separate editor. Take vi: You can
> > edit in normal mode (= the actual vi mode) or in ex mode or in insert
> > mode (e.g. with ^W, ^U). You have the choic
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 02:47:55PM +0100, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> My view of that kind of editing is, you select the third word in the
> fourth sentence (either by leaping or with the mouse), hop over to the
> command buffer (Ctrl-Tab?), and run `x/[aeiou]/d'. If you want
> something weird like
On 15 June 2011 12:26, markus schnalke wrote:
> What's the difference between a mode and a ``quasimode''?
What's the difference between shift and caps lock?
> Surely, the problems are knowing in which mode you're in and switching
> modes. But in return, each mode lets you re-use your keyboard ke
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Peter John Hartman
wrote:
> A simple editor probably shouldn't have any more keybindings than, say,
> surf; in fact one or two less: page up/down, up/right/left/down, and find.
> One doesn't need modes for that. If you want to do something wacked out to
> your fil
> Still I wonder why you try so much to stay modeless. Modes are a real
> advantage because each mode offers a separate editor. Take vi: You can
> edit in normal mode (= the actual vi mode) or in ex mode or in insert
> mode (e.g. with ^W, ^U). You have the choice which editor (mode) you
> use for s
[2011-06-12 18:55] Martin Kühl
>
> [...] command-quasimode [...]
> [...] mostly modeless.
[2011-06-12 22:38] Connor Lane Smith
>
> For substitution I'm tempted to just add a keybind to switch to and
> from the command pane, which appears at the bottom of the view
> (`Quake-like', as Paul says).
On 13 June 2011 03:25, Leon wrote:
> x doesn't necessarily match lines; it chunks the file arbitrarily. The
> chunks could potentially be huge.
Of course; I just meant the matches and their addresses.
> Also, another buffer seems unwieldy.
> Still, perhaps a non-contiguous highlighted "dot" of s
> The editor uses interactive structural regular expressions, somewhat
> like sam, only with more visual support. Say you run the command
> `x/re/'; a special `match' buffer will open containing the matching
> lines and line numbers (and in the case of X & Y, their file names
> too), allowing you t
On 12 June 2011 18:55, Martin Kühl wrote:
> Have you considered a command-quasimode? That way you could keep
> vi-style composeable commands and stay mostly modeless.
Yes, this is possible -- I was wondering whether we could fit in
command composition. A quasimode would work well for things like
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 00:05, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> My plan, then, is to write an editor for X, which although
> (almost-)modeless, is extremely fast to use. (I say `almost' because
> search, for instance, is a mode, but is at the users' locus of
> attention. I may also make `Escape' an opti
Connor Lane Smith lubutu.com> wrote:
>
> I've been working on a minimalist UTF-8 library for the editor, based
> on Plan 9's libutf, except designed for native Unix, with support for
> Unicode beyond the Basic Multilingual Plane, and without the
> vulnerabilities on 64-bit systems. I'm not sure
On 10 June 2011 14:42, Rob wrote:
> It looks like it's been decided that X is the way to go, but before any
> code is implemented, I thought I'd just stick my oar in - what if we
> were to keep to the terminal and open a connection to an X server, if
> available, and simply query the modifier key
On 10 June 2011 08:54, Rafa Garcia Gallego
wrote:
> The lack of Shift+Control modifier is a serious bummer indeed.
It looks like it's been decided that X is the way to go, but before any
code is implemented, I thought I'd just stick my oar in - what if we
were to keep to the terminal and open a c
Paul Onyschuk writes:
> It has been discussed before[1]. With Sam regexps, own window manager
> can be handy. Some quotes:
>
> Russ Cox swtch.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The die hard sam users would disagree vehemently with you.
>> The nice thing about sam is that it's one window, not many,
>> making it
On 10 June 2011 12:19, Paul Onyschuk wrote:
> Is vertical side by side layout stupid idea? Maybe not. We've gone from
> small screens to high resolution widescreen monitors. Moreover 2 or
> 3-screens setup isn't fancy anymore. Using so much vertical space
> effectively for text editing is a topic
On 10 June 2011 08:54, Rafa Garcia Gallego
wrote:
> What do you mean by that? Is there an experimental way to view,
> insert, change, delete text? I've read below about the multiple views
> and all, is that one of the research-y ideas? Just curious.
Well, you can't exactly go crazy, but there are
Yoshi Rokuko rokuko.net> wrote:
>
> if an application needs more windows these windows should be managed
> by the window manager - usually starting multiple instances is
> enough, so imho using something like :sp in vim from inside X is
> stupid.
>
> fullscreen is for me not the point in [2] yo
+--- Paul Onyschuk ---+
>
[...]
> I love the text editor Sam. There is one problem with it - it's stack
> based WM over stack based WM. How to resolve this issue? Just look at
> so called distraction-free editors like FocusWriter[2] - using full
> screen is a feature.
>
After seeing words "very experimental", I'm willing to share some
ideas, maybe too controversial otherwise for suckless folk ;)
First of all, check Recdit[1] editor. It's Mac OS X app, but nice paper
and short video is available. It has some unique features.
Is vertical side by side layout stupid
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Rafa Garcia Gallego
wrote:
> I like the idea of structural regex, but I haven't used sam much. The
> match buffer sounds a bit emacs-y for my taste. I doubt emacs has
> something exactly like that; then again I am more of a vi(m) guy so
> emacs is really a myth for
Hi
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> I'd like to include those of you who aren't in IRC in the discussion
> we're having wrt writing a new text editor. We do already have Sandy
> of course, and I think Rafa is doing a great job, but there are a
> couple o
Hey all,
I'd like to include those of you who aren't in IRC in the discussion
we're having wrt writing a new text editor. We do already have Sandy
of course, and I think Rafa is doing a great job, but there are a
couple of reasons why I don't think it will for me replace Vi:
1. Curses: it has it
66 matches
Mail list logo
