From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <45219fb00606090612p34781e45n@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 15:12:12 +0200 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Llu=EDs_Batlle?=" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] gcc on plan9 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <44874DD2.8070108@gmail.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 63b649d6-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 2006/6/8, quanstro@quanstro.net : > On Wed Jun 7 17:07:21 CDT 2006, viriketo@gmail.com wrote: > > acme and previously sam has done me well with all manner of badly formatted > and ill-concieved c, c++, perl, pre-f77 fortran, etc. Well, mostly I have strict rules about "your fixes must give MINIMAL changes". So I'm not allowed changing any line (spacing, etc.) if I the final code doesn't change. According to this rule, through the years the code became a big mess. So, I use gvim because I can control quite fine the spacing changes with Undo/Redo, etc. I don't think 'acme' would be better than gvim for me in this situation, but I'm not an "accostumed" user of acme. > > perhaps i don't get it, but there's nothing i've seen in other editors that helped > with bad code. bad code is just as bad in colour -- and harder on the eyes. I agree.