From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4559DBB3.5040405@village.com> Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 10:07:31 -0500 From: Wes Kussmaul User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Samterm up down key patch References: <20061114104953.GA11151@shodan.homeunix.net> <13426df10611140525k68c31de1s525c816957352836@mail.gmail.com> <4559D09D.6040908@village.com> In-Reply-To: <4559D09D.6040908@village.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: debe7e14-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 Sorry, that was supposed to be private. Wes Kussmaul wrote: > > Ron, you are the missing link between rational programming and > montaigne-ism (living with the living.) > > Are you swinging by here on your way back from Tampa? > > Wes >> >> But maybe rio and acme are wrong. >> >> I guess we can worry about internal consistency in plan 9, but fact >> is, in the rest of the known universe, uparrow goes up a line, >> downarrow goes down, they move the cursor. >> >> We've got page up and page down; we could always use them. It was bad >> enough when right arrow and left arrow did what they did .... >> >> If we're halfway to readline, well, then, maybe people want it, and we >> should have it, and not having it was a mistake all along. You should >> be different if it makes sense; otherwise, don't. >> >> But the worst thing we can do is fall into the 'it's always worked >> this way' mantra. At that point, you might as well be a Fortran >> programmer. >> >> ron >> > >