plw@panda.UUCP (Pete Williamson) (05/01/86)
Does anybody have any experience using Borland's Turbo Editor Toolbox? Specifically, is it source code that can be modified to become the editor of your choice? Is it memory resident, like the Sidekick notepad? Any information on this would be appreciated. Thank you. -- Pete Williamson "By hook or by crook, we will !!" ... #2
ejb@think.ARPA (Erik Bailey) (05/02/86)
In article <1771@panda.UUCP> plw@genrad.UUCP (Pete Williamson) writes: >Does anybody have any experience using Borland's Turbo Editor Toolbox? Personally, no. But I know a bit about it... >Specifically, is it source code that can be modified to become the >editor of your choice? Yup. Turbo source initially configured to be wordstar-like, but you can do ANYTHING you want. Anything. >Is it memory resident, like the Sidekick notepad? Nope. For that matter, is ANY word-processor resident? -- Erik Bailey -- 7 Oak Knoll (USENET courtesy of ihnp4!think!ejb Arlington, MA 02174 Thinking Machines Corp. ejb@think.com (617) 643-0732 Cambridge, MA) It takes thought to make a program that thinks. But it takes work to make a program that works.
plw@panda (05/02/86)
Does anybody have any experience using Borland's Turbo Editor Toolbox? Specifically, is it source code that can be modified to become the editor of your choice? Is it memory resident, like the Sidekick notepad? Any information on this would be appreciated. Thank you. -- Pete Williamson "By hook or by crook, we will !!" ... #2
dpz@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (David P. Zimmerman) (05/03/86)
> Does anybody have any experience using Borland's Turbo Editor Toolbox? I do - I bought it several months ago. >Specifically, is it source code that can be modified to become the >editor of your choice? Yes, and they even include a compiled version of the source code as a program called MicroStar, based on good ol' WordStar. The source code seems fairly easy to trace, although I got lost once or twice. One thing - there is a *lot* of it. I bought the Editor Toolbox with the intention of writing my own Emacs in Turbo Pascal with the Toolbox's extensions, but I ending up with the feeling that the routines in the Toolbox were too rigid (they decide on a data structure to hold text and build all their routines on it). I guess that may just be personal preference, though - I tend to always want to create my own data structures. What it looks like to me is that any program written using the Turbo Editor Toolbox will have the same internal data structures as any other program written in it (which may be good) - the Toolbox gives you a good deal of freedom with the user interface, though, which is very pleasing. >Is it memory resident, like the Sidekick notepad? No, MicroStar isn't, but noone says that you can't build your own memory resident word processor with the given tools! Davidann -- Name: David P. Zimmerman Nickname: "Davidann" (don't ask) Cute quote: " (well, *I* think it's cute!) Arpa: dzimmerman@blue.rutgers.edu Uucp: ...{harvard, allegra, seismo, ut-sally, sri-iu, ihnp4}!topaz!dpz
chapman@pavepaws.berkeley.edu (Brent Chapman) (05/05/86)
In article <5079@think.ARPA> ejb@think.UUCP (Erik Bailey) writes: >In article <1771@panda.UUCP> plw@genrad.UUCP (Pete Williamson) writes: >>Specifically, is it source code that can be modified to become the >>editor of your choice? > >Yup. Turbo source initially configured to be wordstar-like, >but you can do ANYTHING you want. Anything. > >>Is it memory resident, like the Sidekick notepad? > >Nope. For that matter, is ANY word-processor resident? Well, I happen to be partial to BRIEF. It is completely programmable and expandable, ala Emacs/GNUmacs. While not "resident" in the sense you mean, you can get something similar by calling up BRIEF, then pushing a command shell from within BRIEF. I recommend it, for programming, over any other microcomputer editor I've ever seen or used. I think it costs about $179, or something like that. I'm currently collecting a bunch of BRIEF "macros" (programs, actually) from various sources. If you are a BRIEF user, and have something to contribute, or would like to receive the package when I'm finished with it, let me know vie e-mail. Brent Chapman chapman@pavepaws.berkeley.edu ucbvax!pavepaws!chapman
marty@ism780c.UUCP (Marty Smith) (05/05/86)
In article <1771@panda.UUCP> plw@genrad.UUCP (Pete Williamson) writes: >Does anybody have any experience using Borland's Turbo Editor Toolbox? I'm using the Borland Editor Toolbox as the base for an editor for screenwriters. I'm not far enough along yet to comment on the quality of the package, but I'm finding that I'm rewriting a great deal of the code from scratch. This is probably due more to the different requirements of an editor for screenwriters than it is due to any problem with the Toolbox. So far, I'm pleased that I bought it, because I've learned some things about editors by reading the code, and it has allowed me to start off with a system that already has the dirty problems of editors solved. One problem is that the Toolbox itself takes up most of the 64K of code space allowed. So if the system you're building on top of it needs a lot of space, you might run into problems. The Toolbox writes to the screen directly, which, if I'm not mistaken, puts it in the class of programs that are not "well-behaved". That might mean problems if you want your editor to run under control of a system like MicroSoft Windows, but I'm not sure about that. Maybe someone who knows more could comment? martin smith marty@ism780c.UUCP (213) 459-6729
dpz@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (David P. Zimmerman) (05/07/86)
> In article <1771@panda.UUCP> plw@genrad.UUCP (Pete Williamson) writes: > >Does anybody have any experience using Borland's Turbo Editor Toolbox? > > The Toolbox writes to the screen directly, which, if I'm not mistaken, puts > it in the class of programs that are not "well-behaved". That might mean > problems if you want your editor to run under control of a system like > MicroSoft Windows, but I'm not sure about that. Maybe someone who knows > more could comment? Yes, it would cause problems. Unless a non-Windows program is "well-behaved" (ie, doesn't write directly to the screen and doesn't read directly from the keyboard) it will not run optimally under Windows. However, Windows can deal with these problem programs. For programs that directly write to the screen, Windows gives them the screen. To switch back to the Windows desktop, you give an ALT-TAB, and back pops Windows, with your application still running in a little icon on the bottom of the screen. Hopefully the application won't need the ALT-TAB for anything crucial. For programs that directly read from the keyboard, Windows gives them the keyboard and the screen. Why? Well, if they take the keyboard, then Windows just can't function - if the program traps all the special keystrokes and "mouse-strokes" that Windows uses to move between applications, you obviously can't move between applications! So Windows just gives up and gives the machine to the program, screen and all. When you exit the program, Windows jumps back in and you've got your desktop back. The Turbo Editor Toolbox luckily only modifies the screen, so you can (and I have) run it under Windows. You switch from the Toolbox to the desktop with ALT-TAB (since it doesn't trap the keys), and you switch from the desktop to the Toolbox by opening the Toolbox icon. dz -- Name: David P. Zimmerman Nickname: "Davidann" (don't ask) Cute quote: " (well, *I* think it's cute!) Arpa: dzimmerman@blue.rutgers.edu Uucp: ...{harvard, allegra, seismo}!topaz!dpz
ljz@well.UUCP (Lloyd Zusman) (05/08/86)
[ "line eater"? ] In article <1771@panda.UUCP> plw@genrad.UUCP (Pete Williamson) writes: >Does anybody have any experience using Borland's Turbo Editor Toolbox? > >Specifically, is it source code that can be modified to become the >editor of your choice? > >Is it memory resident, like the Sidekick notepad? > >Any information on this would be appreciated. > >Thank you. > >-- > Pete Williamson >"By hook or by crook, we will !!" ... #2 I have the Editor Toolbox. It's a bunch of Turbo Pascal routines that can be used as building blocks for customized editors. It comes with 2 pre-made editors ... one is a small, sample editor, and the other is a full-blown Wordstar-type editor (similar to the built-in editor that comes with Turbo Pascal, but better). There's a fairly good instruction manual that tells you the basics of how to construct and editor and describes the existing routines. You get a .COM file (since this is Turbo Pascal) ... no resident capabilities unless you put them in yourself. But all the source code is there, and you can do pretty much what you please. Overall, I think it's one of Borland's more useful products. Oh yes, in addition, there are "hooks" in one of the source modules for interfacing with Turbo Lightning, if it's resident. It's not discussed in the documentation, but the (fairly well commented) source code shows you how to do this interface.
ljz@well.UUCP (Lloyd Zusman) (05/08/86)
In article <259@cad.UUCP> chapman@pavepaws.UUCP (Brent Chapman) writes: >In article <5079@think.ARPA> ejb@think.UUCP (Erik Bailey) writes: >>In article <1771@panda.UUCP> plw@genrad.UUCP (Pete Williamson) writes: >>>Specifically, is it source code that can be modified to become the >>>editor of your choice? ... >Well, I happen to be partial to BRIEF. Well, since BRIEF has come up ... I have tried it and I think there is even a *better* editor: Epsilon by Lugaru Software (5740 Darlington Rd., Pittsburgh, PA 15217, (412) 421-5911). It's quite EMACS-like. It comes with a language to write commands in called EEL ("Epsilon Editor Language", or some such thing) which is actually C ... and a fairly good implementation. It has automatic disk buffering, is fast, allows you to edit multiple files, lets you define windows, but most of all (and this is my favorite feature), lets you run a DOS subprocess *concurrently* in a window. This is TRUE concurrency ... a compile can be cranking away while you're editing in another window, The EEL language is very powerful: you can redefine most commands to work the way you want, reconfigure the keyboard, and define your own new commands. One command I defined allowed me to mark text and then pipe it through a DOS filter, replacing the original text with the output of the filter. This is much like the "!" command in the Unix 'vi' editor. I've never seen any MSDOS editor I could do this on so easily, and I've definitely not seen any MSDOS editor that supports true concurrency. Check it out.
kpk@gitpyr.UUCP (Kevin P. Kleinfelter) (05/10/86)
In article <4929@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>, dpz@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (David P. Zimmerman) writes: > > In article <1771@panda.UUCP> plw@genrad.UUCP (Pete Williamson) writes: > > >Does anybody have any experience using Borland's Turbo Editor Toolbox? > > > > The Toolbox writes to the screen directly, which, if I'm not mistaken, puts > > it in the class of programs that are not "well-behaved". That might mean > > problems if you want your editor to run under control of a system like > > MicroSoft Windows, but I'm not sure about that. Maybe someone who knows > > more could comment? > > Yes, it would cause problems. Unless a non-Windows program is > "well-behaved" (ie, doesn't write directly to the screen and doesn't > read directly from the keyboard) it will not run optimally under > Windows. However, Windows can deal with these problem programs. > Of course there is a simple fix to make Turbo Editor Toolbox work as a well behaved program. Since you have the source, modify it to write using ANSI.SYS. There is the minor problem that a screen update will take about a week, though. :-)
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (05/15/86)
> Epsilon... > This is TRUE concurrency ... a compile can be cranking > away while you're editing in another window, Unfortunately it won't work with DoubleDos, according to the people I spoke to when I was calling around looking for an editor. What sort of quantum does Epsilon use? How jerky does it get? > One command I defined allowed me to mark text and then > pipe it through a DOS filter, replacing the original text with the > output of the filter. This is much like the "!" command in the > Unix 'vi' editor. I did the same thing in "brief". > Check it out. I'm no longer working at a place that is willing to buy software because I think it looks interesting. Any ideas? -- -- Peter da Silva -- UUCP: ...!shell!{baylor,graffiti}!peter; MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076