Re: saved replacement texts?

Re: saved replacement texts?

[Arnold Robbins]

> [ Are there saved replacement texts? -- me ]
> 
> use the mouse; in the case above, select and send in the command window.
> is this difficult?

No, I was just wondering, and hoping to avoid the extra mousing/typing.

Arnold

Re: saved replacement texts?

[Byron Rakitzis]

>How about cutting me some slack, Byron?

I got hot because you called Scott's idea "stupid". If you are going to
call something stupid, you should probably know what you're doing
first.  On this side of the Pacific, those are strong words.

>What I think would be appropriate would be for people who've just started
>using the editor since it's been available free to accumulate four years
>worth of experience with it before leaping to suggest how it should be
>improved.

I've used sam here and there for about that long. I have a pretty
good idea of how it works, and I also have a pretty good idea of what
I want.

>It would also be as well to remember that sam's interface was designed
>to integrate nicely with its surrounding window system environment, viz.
>mux on the Jerq.

I am baffled by one point regarding sam: why is it that it must implement
its own mini-window system internally? I agree that it "integrates" well
with mux: by imitating it! Unfortunately this means that sam is a misfit
in just about any other environment.

(For comparision, check out the NeXT editor. It is a multi-file editor
(no command language to speak of though) that opens a separate window
for each file.)

Re: saved replacement texts?

[Byron Rakitzis]

>This suggestion, I am afraid, is just plain stupid, emacs or no.

Oh, come off your high-horse. Emacs has a command-line which is
separate from the current window. Obviously Scott was not talking
about replacing the command window with the new file.

>Pike did an excellent job designing the sam interface.

I agree. But I don't think he achieved perfection, nor do I think
that suggestions for improvement are inappropriate.

>The single click to place the usual edit window is just what you want.

I'm sorry, maybe it's what you want, but it's not what I want.

>Sometimes, you want to put the command window in the middle of the top-level
>window, and have edit windows above and below.

Yes, about 1% of the time. Does it make sense to have the user interface
revolve around this remote possibility?

>It's not broken and doesn't need any fixing.

Obviously a matter of opinion.

I would prefer either of two options:

1) automatic placement

2) non-placement, i.e., leaving the files in the menu with a minus-sign.
(this makes opening the file into a two-click operation, assuming that
sam points the "lasthit" of the menu at the newly opened file)

In both cases, it means that I don't have to automatically reach for
the mouse after typing B. (though I prefer solution #1)

For example, I often want to make a quick change to a file with commands
of the form

	B file
	cmd
	D

at *least* as often as I want to tile or otherwise futz with the sam
layers.

Re: saved replacement texts?

[John Mackin]

    Oh, come off your high-horse. Emacs has a command-line which is
    separate from the current window. Obviously Scott was not talking
    about replacing the command window with the new file.

Well, hell.  How about cutting me some slack, Byron?  I can only go by
what the words in the mail actually say.  If I were being deliberately
obtuse, you'd have a case.  I wasn't.  _I_ don't know how emacs's user
interface works -- I've never had to use the damned thing.  I thought this
was the sam list, not the emacs list.  What may be `obvious' to someone
who's used the software is by no means obvious to someone who hasn't.

    I agree. But I don't think he achieved perfection, nor do I think
    that suggestions for improvement are inappropriate.

What I think would be appropriate would be for people who've just started
using the editor since it's been available free to accumulate four years
worth of experience with it before leaping to suggest how it should be
improved.

It would also be as well to remember that sam's interface was designed
to integrate nicely with its surrounding window system environment, viz.
mux on the Jerq.  Since ordinary X environments are nothing like that,
and since X literally _cannot_ be made to be _precisely_ like that (I
tried very hard), sam tends not be that well-integrated with the usual
X environment.

Of course, it's the X environment that's wrong here (grin).

OK,
John.

Re: saved replacement texts?

[Byron Rakitzis]

>if that were the default, how would you specify that you _really_
>want to sweep a window?

by reshaping it, of course.

Re: saved replacement texts?

[Byron Rakitzis]

Actually, this is a gripe of mine also. Forcing the user to use the
mouse is poor design, IMO. e.g., I think that 99% of the time the
overlapping windows in sam are useless. Hence I think it's particularly
pointless that I have to open a file by typing "B file" and then using
the mouse to "sweep" out the new area, when all I'm going to do is
click on the 3rd mouse button. Why isn't that action the default?

Re: saved replacement texts?

[Scott Schwartz]

| IMO. e.g., I think that 99% of the time the overlapping windows in 
| sam are useless. 

One thing that bothers me is that only the top window has focus, so
letting them peek out from under is unhelpful.  I wind up tiling them,
or just switching back and forth with button-3.  Multiple toplevel X
windows, are probably a better idea for something like sam.  Mxedit
does that, and it works pretty well.  Epoch doesn't do so well, mostly
because people do heavyweight blocking operations (like reading news!)
in one window which block the others; in emacs, since the windows are
in the same frame, it's more obvious that there is one thread of
control for the lot of them.

It's also annoying that moving a window is implemented by resizing,
which makes it hard to just move it without resizing.

Re: saved replacement texts?

[noel]

    From:	byron@netapp.com (Byron Rakitzis)
    Subject: Re: saved replacement texts?

    pointless that I have to open a file by typing "B file" and then using
    the mouse to "sweep" out the new area, when all I'm going to do is
    click on the 3rd mouse button. Why isn't that action the default?

if that were the default, how would you specify that you _really_
want to sweep a window?

Re: saved replacement texts?

[Chris Siebenmann]

 Automatic placement of new windows probably isn't the default because
Pike didn't have a good way to do it, especially in sam (it's also
somewhat against the model). I don't really see how to fix that.

	- cks

Re: saved replacement texts?

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

Chris Siebenmann bubbles:
>  Automatic placement of new windows probably isn't the default because
> Pike didn't have a good way to do it, especially in sam (it's also
> somewhat against the model). I don't really see how to fix that.

An interesting paper to read by Pike is the one on his "Help" system.
He takes quite a different approach based on "sensible defaults" and
"minimal actions".

This means that there is no click to type, because the click used to type
has no purpose, other than as a click.  Likewise, there are no menus,
because pulling up a menu is a waste of a click.

Clicking on a word selects the word, rather than having to drag, since
selecting words is the default action to match the most common operation.
Selecting words is also the way you perform operations.  If you want
to open a file, you select the word "open" anywhere it appears, and do
something to act upon it (can't quite remember).  Therefore, if you
want a menu, you open up a text buffer, and type the menu you want.
Text buffers can be linked to underlying programs, talking through
a special file heirachy (plan 9, of course).  "Underlying programs"
means normal tool-type programs, with rc scripts doing any glueing needed.

"Sensible defaults" also means automatic placement of windows.

While it's very much a prototype with heavy experimentation, it looks
very usable.  There was talk of it being distributed with the academic
Plan 9 release.  Is this so (Matty?)?

	J

Re: saved replacement texts?

[Scott Schwartz]

| An interesting paper to read by Pike is the one on his "Help" system.
| He takes quite a different approach based on "sensible defaults" and
| "minimal actions".

A similar system (which Pike cites in that paper) is Wirth's Oberon
system.  You can ftp it from  neptune.inf.ethz.ch.  It's pretty neat,
well worth playing with for a while, but you need a sparc to run it on.

Re: saved replacement texts?

[Scott Schwartz]

|  Automatic placement of new windows probably isn't the default because
| Pike didn't have a good way to do it, especially in sam (it's also
| somewhat against the model). I don't really see how to fix that.

Just for the sake of argument, he could have done what rms did with
emacs, namely replace the current window with the new one.  (Maybe I'm
just hopelessly tainted, but I think a number of emacs' features are
reasonable. :-)

In another instance, if you arrange to get a new toplevel window then
placement is a window manager function, rather than an application
function.  (Insert Rob's complaints about X window managers here. :-)

By the way, maybe we should have a plan-9-wanna-be BOF at usenix?

Re: saved replacement texts?

[John Mackin]

    Just for the sake of argument, he could have done what rms did with
    emacs, namely replace the current window with the new one.  (Maybe I'm
    just hopelessly tainted, but I think a number of emacs' features are
    reasonable. :-)

Scott,

This suggestion, I am afraid, is just plain stupid, emacs or no.

You don't want the command window replaced with the window you just
said B about.

Pike did an excellent job designing the sam interface.  The single
click to place the usual edit window is just what you want.  Sometimes,
you want to put the command window in the middle of the top-level
window, and have edit windows above and below.  If you want them to
overlap, you can, although as has been observed here before, tiling
is usually more useful.

It's not broken and doesn't need any fixing.

OK,
John.

Re: saved replacement texts?

[Scott Schwartz]

| This suggestion, I am afraid, is just plain stupid, emacs or no.
| 
| You don't want the command window replaced with the window you just
| said B about.

Oh come now:  Emacs doesn't let you replace the minibuffer either.  If
there is no file window open, then you would get a fresh one, just as
if you had clicked button-3.  Otherwise, the previously selected file
window would be covered with a new one. 

| It's not broken and doesn't need any fixing.

I wasn't suggesting that anyone start hacking on it, only pointing out
that there are alternatives to the current style interface.

(p.s. I typed this with vi, so there. :-)

saved replacement texts?

[Arnold Robbins]

System V versions of ed have a saved replacement text, so that one
can do the following:

	/foo/s//bar/
	//s//%/		or in vi:    ://s

Where the `%' means the last replacement text I used.  Vi uses the `~' for
this purpose.  Is there anything analogous in sam for either the c or s
commands?

Is there a reason (other than minimalism for the sake of minimalism) that
there shouldn't be such a thing?  Am I missing something obvious, or even
something subtle that's not apparent from the command language tutorial?

Thanks,

Arnold

Re: saved replacement texts?

[noel]

    From:	arnold@cc.gatech.edu (Arnold Robbins)
    Subject: saved replacement texts?

    System V versions of ed have a saved replacement text, so that one
    can do the following:

    	/foo/s//bar/
    	//s//%/		or in vi:    ://s

    Where the `%' means the last replacement text I used.  Vi uses the `~' for
    this purpose.  Is there anything analogous in sam for either the c or s
    commands?

    Is there a reason (other than minimalism for the sake of minimalism) that
    there shouldn't be such a thing?  Am I missing something obvious, or even
    something subtle that's not apparent from the command language tutorial?

    Thanks,

    Arnold

use the mouse; in the case above, select and send in the command window.
is this difficult?