Re: Great SWT Program
nebulous99@gmail.com skrev:
On Oct 29, 5:35 am, b...@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C Dalager) wrote:
Well, that's context for you. In c.l.j.p, don't be surprised if I use
programming-centric meanings of English words.
If it can't be taken at face value and this isn't obvious then it
needs to be explained in advance. (So use of "Java" to refer to the
programming language is fine -- we all know what "Java" likely means,
here. And terms like "IDE" have no "face value". When the context or
capitalization makes it clear that something is a proper name (e.g.
"ant", "NetBeans", "Tomcat") again it's clear it's not just the
English words being used in the ordinary way. But none of those
applies to the earlier use of the phrase "incremental search", I'm
sorry to say.
But it does apply. When discussing Emacs and related matters,
"incremental search" does have the definition Bent mentioned.
I'd prefer search methodologies that are not up to your standards (but
are of course perfectly adequate) to being unable to easily do the
main thing, which is actually enter new text.
As would I, of course, if the latter were an actual problem.
If typing jumps you around to matches instead of inserting what you
type, then I'd say there is indeed an "actual problem". Of course vi
That only happens while you are typing a search string. The standard way
to start incremental search is to type C-s (Ctrl+s). Call it search
mode, if you will. There are several ways to stop searching. You can
also use non-incremental search by starting with another key combination.
has its command mode to allow overloading the alphabetic keys, and
crufty though that is, it does make such an overload make sense. But
we were discussing emacs, which lacks such a mode...
Not really. See above.
There are generally easier ways to change windows in emacs, but there
is no reason to not use the mouse to click your way into them if you
feel like it.
Other than that a VT100 with a mouse seems to be a rarer find than an
odd perfect number.
Nobody uses VT100 any more, and very few people use the terminal
emulator window to run emacs. In Unix/Linux, we use an X-enabled emacs,
which runs in one or several X windows. MS-Windows versions of emacs
have the same capabilities, except that some useful "plug-ins" may be
missing.
Text-mode apps (such as Borland's old Turbo C++) would easily do this
by use of colours and various text line glyphs.
A shame a unix console app can't use such features, since it has to
pander to the lowest common denominator of terminal types.
Emacs isn't a unix console app, and hasn't been since a long time.
As can text-based windows, in the general case.
Not in emacs. I definitely saw its idea of "windows" used once, and
they split the display into nonoverlapping panes, which quickly got
claustrophobic.
If you cannot use X, you may have that problem, but usually you can use X.
The only reason resolution may have been "limited" with Turbo C++ was
that screens at the time weren't as good as they are today. That is a
technological issue, not one of text mode vs graphical mode.
Text mode still sucks, no matter what you may claim.
That's not an emacs problem.