On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 2:06 AM, Paul Donnelly
<paul-donnelly@sbcglobal.net>wrote:

> paurea@gmail.com (Gorka Guardiola) writes:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 7:42 PM, David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> The only thing I'd miss in Acme vs emacs then, most likely, for
> lisp-like
> >> languages is paren-matching.
> >> And I'd miss it dearly.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Double click on the paren selects the area enclosed by the matching
> paren.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > - curiosity sKilled the cat
>
> I don't know if posts to usenet (where I lurk this list) go through to
> the mailing list, but I've found Acme's paren matching to be
> sufficient. The bear is indentation, since to make it work out it's
> necessary to use a fixed-width font (something I'd rather not do) and
> adjust it by hand, which needs to happen more often and by greater
> degrees than in a language like C. The chief issues being:
>
> (list (list 'a 'b 'c)
>      (list 1 2 3))
> ;     ^
> ;     These need to line up.
>
> ;     These need to line up.
> ;     V
> (let ((a 3)
>      (b 4))
>  (+ a b))
> ; ^
> ; Should be two spaces or so.
>
>
Yeah I guess I'm spoiled by the hotkey visual cues I get from Emacs when
typing in code, that automatically show me the matching parens as I type.
 Perhaps I really don't *need* that.  I'll try Plan 9 Port acme again for
some Scheme Shell or something and see how it goes.  (Emacs screws up Scheme
Shell pretty badly, due to it's not accepting | characters in it's syntax
definition, and as I said before, customizing emacs is not the same as me
getting my work done)

Dave