From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
From: baldwin@vitanuova.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <20010331055126.9EB1C199FA@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Subject: [9fans] sam & rio
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 00:51:25 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 77dc59f8-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

rob mentions the danger of having two interfaces being almost the same
but different as an argument against having DEL act differently in sam
and rio.

i'll just mention my major point of frustration on this topic: the
lack of chorded cut/paste in sam.  i am so used to do this in rio and
acme that i have become almost crippled in sam.  the lack of
auto-scroll° and selecting off the top or bottom of the window round
out my list of annoying diffs between sam and rio/acme.

luckily, with the addition of the sam command language to acme, i now
have no reason to use sam†.  now if acme only did "win" windows as well
as rio (how i miss the input/output point distinction), i might not
run rio either‡.

° why doesn't auto-scroll work with the middle and right buttons?
† splitting front-end from back-end is still useful for slow links.
‡ of course, graphing programs must still be run from rio.