From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <030001c11103$f8d865b0$3cf7c6d4@SOMA>
From: "Boyd Roberts" <boyd@fr.inter.net>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
References: <10149.995622462@apnic.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] sam vs acme
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 12:08:49 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: d19c54a2-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

From: "George Michaelson" <ggm@apnic.net>
> 2) I can see both sides of. Newer vi have multipe undo as a stack *and*
>    named/numbered snarf space *and* the u-u toggle behaviour of do/undo and
>    I actually find I like both/all three.

vi's 'undo' was always broken.  with sam's, which is dead easy to
implement once you've made the crucial insight, makes using 'x'
worry free.  you start with a first cut, try it and then use 'u'
and stepwise refinement until you've persuaded the file(s) to
come 'round to your way of thinking.

i use sam on unix, windows ('cept it's broken on these damn vaio's
on '2000) and plan 9 (when i can -- damn vaio's).  only way to write
html and damn useful to tame machine generated html glop.