From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:38:53 -0700 Message-Id: <200007181838.LAA02161@ohio.river.org> From: Richard To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: [9fans] Re: interaction In-Reply-To: <200007180807.EAA19981@cse.psu.edu> References: <200007180807.EAA19981@cse.psu.edu> Topicbox-Message-UUID: e2e02794-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk writes: > Richard> do you 2 use it as your interactive shell, too, or just > Richard> for scripts? > in acme and rio i might have a window open on a file of >common sequences for editing, snarfing and sending into shells and other >commands. when developing in acme, i have the word mk typed in the tag >of the directory window so that one click of a button will execute it >and pop the diagnostics into another window for use by button 3. i can >have different commands for different windows (adiff /one/thing >/another/thing is a common one at the moment). furthermore, in all but >the function case i can see what i need and get what i see, and they all >handle multiline commands sensibly, which i've never found true for most >`richard the third' interfaces. those suggestions are specific to Plan 9 whereas I was asking the 2 posters about their style of usage of rc on *Unix*. it is always good, though, to recieve confirmation that experienced Plan 9 users actually follow the general style described in the Acme and Plumber papers. and "see what I need and get what I see" is an apt description of that style. per analogy with WYSIWYG, maybe we should shorten it to SWYNAGWYS. >in short, it's worth experimenting with the things the system gives you. definitely.