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 <karmaf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 4:15 AM, David Tweed <david.tw...@gmail.com> 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 need to do > > this; some other piece of software can do it FOR the editor' > > The various subtlties in what he could have meant was precisely what I > was trying to get a clarification of. (It seemed silly to wait for a > round trip delay before proceeding to the conversation.) It's not
I might concede another keybinding for undo/redo, since that'd still keep us under 10 keybindings. But it still seems rather luxurious nor should the editor (the software) be tasked with *very much* having to do with revision control---certainly cut-and-paste and managing buffers should be offloaded to the surrounding environment (be it X or tmux). On a related note: one-file-per-editor-instance, period. I guess I'm arguing for an anti-emacs editor which is mode-less. Oh, wait, I'm arguing for joe. Go joe! Best, Peter -- sic dicit magister P PhD Candidate Collaborative Programme in Ancient and Medieval Philosophy University of Toronto http://individual.utoronto.ca/peterjh
