tomc@mntgfx.mentor.com (Tom Carstensen) (10/11/88)
Aztec C has an editor called Z, which is IDENTICAL
in practically EVERY WAY to vi. The only catch, you must
run it from the primitive Aztec shell.
:------------------------------------------------------------:
: | GEnie: T.CARSTENSEN :
: Thomas Carstensen | Delphi: CARSTENSEN :
: Mentor Graphics | CompuServe: 73627,2762 :
: 8500 SW Creekside Pl. | :
: Beaverton, OR 97005-7191 | tomc@pdx.MENTOR.COM :
: (503) 626-7000 | ...{sequent,tessi,attunix, :
: | apollo}!mntgfx!tomc :
:------------------------------------------------------------:
: . . . This is Edison Carter coming to you very much :
: live and direct from Network 23 . . . :
: - Edison Carter :
:------------------------------------------------------------:earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) (10/11/88)
In article <1988Oct10.145745.2790@mntgfx.mentor.com> tomc@mntgfx.mentor.com (Tom Carstensen) writes: >Aztec C has an editor called Z, which is IDENTICAL >in practically EVERY WAY to vi. The only catch, you must >run it from the primitive Aztec shell. > There is a public domain vi clone named "Stevie," originally written for the Atari ST, which now works on the Macintosh. It is not identical to vi, but it is real close. It's free and comes with source code, and you can run it from the Finder and MultiFinder. It doesn't have all the vi features, but it can do regular expression searching and knows about tags. I think I'll post it. Earle R. Horton. 23 Fletcher Circle, Hanover, NH 03755 (603) 643-4109 Sorry, no fancy stuff, since this program limits my .signature to three
ostroff@oswego.Oswego.EDU (Boyd Ostroff) (10/11/88)
In article <1988Oct10.145745.2790@mntgfx.mentor.com> tomc@mntgfx.mentor.com (Tom Carstensen) writes: >Aztec C has an editor called Z, which is IDENTICAL >in practically EVERY WAY to vi. The only catch, you must >run it from the primitive Aztec shell. > I bought the Aztec C commercial package several years ago and have used the vi "clone" extensively. I like it fine, but its only a SUBSET of vi - quite a few of vi's capabilities are missing. I especially miss the ability to do a "shell escape" (my version is 1.06i). If you want to list a directory, for example, you have to quit the program, return to the shell and then start up the editor again, a process which takes quite a while, even with a hard disk. By far the biggest problem is its (lack of) speed, though. If you've ever used vi at 1200 baud on a dialup line, then you'll feel right at home with Aztec's "Z".... So far as I know you need to buy one of the higher end Aztec packages to even get the Z editor - it isn't available by itself. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: Boyd Ostroff, Technical Director :::::: System Operator, "The CallBoard" ::: :::: Dept of Theatre, SUNY Oswego ::::::: (315) 947-6414 300/1200/2400 baud ::: ::::: ostroff@oswego.Oswego.EDU :::::::: rutgers!sunybcs!oswego!cboard!sysop :: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (10/12/88)
I may be opening up a rather large can of worms here; but why, why, why would anyone want to use a single-window editor on a windowing OS? Sure, you get regular expression search (just like MPW Shell and QUED and the Lightspeed C editor). Sure, you get a command set you have to memorize, and modal behavior, if that's the kind of kinky computing you're into. But how can you do good programming without the ability to open your include files and tile them with your source files? How can you do good BBSing without the ability to open your log files and look in them? What on Earth does vi give you that a good Mac editor doesn't? Aren't multiple windows a rather large advantage? By the way, I've used vi for about six years. I'm using it now, because I don't feel like learning a new flavor of Emacs. I'm doing it using my terminal emulator (TOPS Terminal) so I can open up any local file in the built-in editor if I want. I know vi, and I know the Mac, and the Mac is better. Now, a Mac Emacs is a different story.... -- Tim Maroney, Consultant, Eclectic Software, sun!hoptoad!tim "What's bad? What's the use of turning? In Hell I'll be there a-burning! Meanwhile, think of what I'm earning! All on account of my name." - Bill Sykes, "Oliver"
earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) (10/13/88)
In article <5606@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >What on Earth does vi give you that a good Mac editor doesn't? Tags, automatic backup files. Earle R. Horton. 23 Fletcher Circle, Hanover, NH 03755 (603) 643-4109 Sorry, no fancy stuff, since this program limits my .signature to three
steve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield) (10/13/88)
In article <10402@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) writes: #>In article <5606@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: #> #>>What on Earth does vi give you that a good Mac editor doesn't? #> #>Tags, automatic backup files. #> What Mac Editor has the complex search/replace patterns available in vi (by far its best feature)? If there is one, I'm ready for it. Right now I upload to UNIX if I want to do significant automatic editing of a file. Steve Goldfield
earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) (10/14/88)
In article <15424@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> steve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield) writes: >What Mac Editor has the complex search/replace patterns >available in vi (by far its best feature)? If there is >one, I'm ready for it. Right now I upload to UNIX if >I want to do significant automatic editing of a file. MPW Shell has this stuff. The main drawback is that many of the regular expression characters have been replaced by Macintosh extended character set "option" characters. I suppose this was done to be different, or to give the impression that this is a new innovation, invented by the people who programmed MPW Shell. You get used to it after a while, however. MPW Shell can be used to do "significant automatic editing of a file" and is perhaps as good as vi/ex in this regard. Earle R. Horton. 23 Fletcher Circle, Hanover, NH 03755 (603) 643-4109 Sorry, no fancy stuff, since this program limits my .signature to three
gae@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Gerald Edgar) (10/14/88)
>In article <15424@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> steve@violet.berkeley.edu > (Steve Goldfield) writes: >>What Mac Editor has the complex search/replace patterns >>available in vi (by far its best feature)? earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) replies: >MPW Shell has this stuff. I could never figure out how to get MPW to find matching parentheses. I can do this with Emacs regular expressions. -- Gerald A. Edgar TS1871@OHSTVMA.bitnet Department of Mathematics gae@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu The Ohio State University gae@osupyr.UUCP Columbus, OH 43210 70715,1324 CompuServe
straka@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Straka) (10/14/88)
In article <15424@agate.BERKELEY.EDU| steve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield) writes: |In article <10402@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU| earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) writes: |#|In article <5606@hoptoad.uucp| tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: |#||What on Earth does vi give you that a good Mac editor doesn't? |#|Tags, automatic backup files. |What Mac Editor has the complex search/replace patterns |available in vi (by far its best feature)? If there is |one, I'm ready for it. Right now I upload to UNIX if |I want to do significant automatic editing of a file. Steve hit it right on the head. It's not vi vs. whatever. It's a general editor capability question: I've never seen anything that comes even close to UNIX(R)'s regular expression matching when it comes to complex search and replace algorithms. Why don't ALL editors and word processors have this (UNIX's) regular expression matching? I know it's complex to implement, but it's extremely powerful, and if you're going to make a standard, you can't go too wrong with it. -- Rich Straka ihnp4!ihlpf!straka Avoid BrainDamage: MSDOS - just say no!
jhf@lanl.gov (Joseph Fasel) (10/14/88)
In article <933@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu>, gae@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Gerald Edgar) writes: > > >In article <15424@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> steve@violet.berkeley.edu > > (Steve Goldfield) writes: > >>What Mac Editor has the complex search/replace patterns > >>available in vi (by far its best feature)? > > earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) replies: > >MPW Shell has this stuff. > > I could never figure out how to get MPW to find matching parentheses. I can > do this with Emacs regular expressions. How can any kind of regular expression possibly find matching parentheses? No parenthesis language is regular. . . . . . . .
dorourke@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (David M. O'Rourke) (10/14/88)
In article <10402@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) writes: >In article <5606@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >>What on Earth does vi give you that a good Mac editor doesn't? > >Tags, automatic backup files. There are a couple of Mac editor's that offer this capability. Both MPW & Qued/M+ offer tags or markers for the text. In addition Qued/M+ offers backup files, autosaving, and collapsalbe {sp?} lines so that you can "hide" lines of code under their procedure headers so you don't have to look at them every time you run through a listing. Also both Qued/M+ & MPW offer macros for repetitive processes. MPW has a scripting language that can do this, and Qued/M offers a Macros Language of it's own. For features I still haven't seen one feature of 'vi' that can't be found in good Macintosh editor's. The only "feature" of vi is that it's a pain to use and/or figure out. And Mac editors tend to be straght forward. -- David M. O'Rourke dorourke@polyslo.calpoly.edu "If it doesn't do Windows, then it's not a computer!!!" Disclaimer: I don't represent the school. All opinions are mine!
kaufman@polya.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) (10/14/88)
In article <933@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> gae@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu.UUCP (Gerald Edgar) writes: >I could never figure out how to get MPW to find matching parentheses. I can >do this with Emacs regular expressions. You are going to feel silly when I tell you how. Just double-click on a parenthesis, bracket, or brace. The highlighted area will go to the matching one of the same type. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@polya.stanford.edu)
steve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield) (10/15/88)
In article <10421@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) writes: #>In article <15424@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> steve@violet.berkeley.edu #> (Steve Goldfield) writes: #>>What Mac Editor has the complex search/replace patterns #>>available in vi (by far its best feature)? If there is #>>one, I'm ready for it. Right now I upload to UNIX if #>>I want to do significant automatic editing of a file. #> #>MPW Shell has this stuff. The main drawback is that many of the #>regular expression characters have been replaced by Macintosh extended #>character set "option" characters. I suppose this was done to be #>different, or to give the impression that this is a new innovation, #>invented by the people who programmed MPW Shell. You get used to it #>after a while, however. #> #>MPW Shell can be used to do "significant automatic editing of a file" #>and is perhaps as good as vi/ex in this regard. #> #>Earle R. Horton. 23 Fletcher Circle, Hanover, NH 03755 #>(603) 643-4109 #>Sorry, no fancy stuff, since this program limits my .signature to three Thanks for the response and also to the person who sent me similar Email. What I meant by "automatic editing" is that in UNIX I can write a shell script to use ex for complex changes to many files. Can MPW Shell do that, too? I'll look into it in any case. The other thing which seems to be lacking (maybe I just haven't run into the right software) is a good and very general spelling checker (by good I mean that it shows the context, permits a typed in substitution, permits adding a new word to a dictionary, and checks files from all word processing programs without problems. I've used SpellsWell and the built-in checkers in Microsoft Word 3 and WriteNow and haven't been impressed. But then UNIX spell isn't too hot, either.)
dorourke@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (David M. O'Rourke) (10/15/88)
In article <15424@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> steve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield) writes: >What Mac Editor has the complex search/replace patterns >available in vi (by far its best feature)? If there is >one, I'm ready for it. Right now I upload to UNIX if >I want to do significant automatic editing of a file. Both MPW & Qued/M+ offer complex search and replace functions. MPW offers a grep lookalike with it's search tool, and Qued's Macro Language is much more powerful than VI's search and replace. I think if you would give either of these editors a serious look you'd find them better than VI. -- David M. O'Rourke dorourke@polyslo.calpoly.edu "If it doesn't do Windows, then it's not a computer!!!" Disclaimer: I don't represent the school. All opinions are mine!
steve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield) (10/15/88)
In article <6412@ihlpf.ATT.COM> straka@ihlpf.UUCP (55223-Straka,R.J.) writes: #>In article <15424@agate.BERKELEY.EDU| steve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield) writes: #>|In article <10402@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU| earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) writes: #>|#|In article <5606@hoptoad.uucp| tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: #>|#||What on Earth does vi give you that a good Mac editor doesn't? #>|#|Tags, automatic backup files. #>|What Mac Editor has the complex search/replace patterns #>|available in vi (by far its best feature)? If there is #>|one, I'm ready for it. Right now I upload to UNIX if #>|I want to do significant automatic editing of a file. #> #>Steve hit it right on the head. It's not vi vs. whatever. It's a general #>editor capability question: #> #>I've never seen anything that comes even close to UNIX(R)'s regular #>expression matching when it comes to complex search and replace algorithms. #> #>Why don't ALL editors and word processors have this (UNIX's) regular #>expression matching? I know it's complex to implement, but it's extremely #>powerful, and if you're going to make a standard, you can't go too wrong with #>it. #>-- #>Rich Straka ihnp4!ihlpf!straka #> #>Avoid BrainDamage: MSDOS - just say no! While we're on the idea of standards and ideal resources, does anyone know of something similar to SNOBOL for powerful and flexible pattern matches and rearrangements. I'd take it on either the Mac or in UNIX generally. I haven't programmed in SNOBOL for over 15 years, but I recall it as one of the strongest tools I ever had.
gae@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Gerald Edgar) (10/15/88)
In article <4464@polya.Stanford.EDU] kaufman@polya.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) writes: ]In article <933@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu] gae@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu.UUCP (Gerald Edgar) writes: ] ]]I could never figure out how to get MPW to find matching parentheses. I can ]]do this with Emacs regular expressions. ] ]You are going to feel silly when I tell you how. Just double-click on a ]parenthesis, bracket, or brace. The highlighted area will go to the matching ]one of the same type. ] I want to be able to do this within a script that does other things, too. I don't want to do this by hand hundreds of times. Emacs lets me do this. Does MPW? Is there an analog of this double click within the Search command? -- Gerald A. Edgar TS1871@OHSTVMA.bitnet Department of Mathematics gae@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu The Ohio State University gae@osupyr.UUCP Columbus, OH 43210 70715,1324 CompuServe
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (10/15/88)
In article <15487@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> steve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield) writes: >What I meant by "automatic editing" is that in UNIX I can >write a shell script to use ex for complex changes to many files. >Can MPW Shell do that, too? Yes, because all the editor commands can also be given by shell commands, and the commands can be saved in a shell script. On the other hand, a Mac vi wouldn't have the power to do this unless it came with a UNIX shell as well (and the "!" command, which seems even less likely). >The other thing which seems to be lacking (maybe I just haven't run >into the right software) is a good and very general spelling >checker (by good I mean that it shows the context, permits a >typed in substitution, permits adding a new word to a dictionary, >and checks files from all word processing programs without >problems. I've used SpellsWell and the built-in checkers in >Microsoft Word 3 and WriteNow and haven't been impressed. But >then UNIX spell isn't too hot, either.) No, it sure isn't. It's a major pain in the ass to use, in fact, and it has none of the features you described if memory serves. There's a spell checker called Thunder on the Mac that bases it all on keystroke interception, so it works interactively with any application. I haven't used it myself except for compatibility tests, but those I know who've used it like it a lot. On the other hand, I have tried to use Hayden Speller -- spent money for it, even. What a rip-off. Avoid it like the plague. Maximum of 1500 different words, shit. The way I write, there's no way it could even get through a single short story. I thought we were talking about advantages and disadvantages between vi and Mac editors. You don't seem to have really spoken much to that issue. And no one seems to want to discuss the multiple-windows issue; I really doubt I'm the only person who opens more than one document at a time! What gives? -- Tim Maroney, Consultant, Eclectic Software, sun!hoptoad!tim "Don't talk to me about disclaimers! I invented disclaimers!" - The Censored Hacker
tedj@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Ted Johnson) (10/15/88)
>real close. It's free and comes with source code, and you can run it from the >Finder and MultiFinder. It doesn't have all the vi features, but it can do >regular expression searching and knows about tags. I think I'll post it. Please post the app & source code! -Ted
cyosta@taux01.UUCP (Yossie Silverman) (10/17/88)
In article <6412@ihlpf.ATT.COM> straka@ihlpf.UUCP (55223-Straka,R.J.) writes: .In article <15424@agate.BERKELEY.EDU| steve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield) writes: .|In article <10402@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU| earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) writes: .|#|In article <5606@hoptoad.uucp| tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: .|#||What on Earth does vi give you that a good Mac editor doesn't? .|#|Tags, automatic backup files. .|What Mac Editor has the complex search/replace patterns .|available in vi (by far its best feature)? If there is .|one, I'm ready for it. Right now I upload to UNIX if .|I want to do significant automatic editing of a file. . .Steve hit it right on the head. It's not vi vs. whatever. It's a general .editor capability question: . .I've never seen anything that comes even close to UNIX(R)'s regular .expression matching when it comes to complex search and replace algorithms. . .Why don't ALL editors and word processors have this (UNIX's) regular .expression matching? I know it's complex to implement, but it's extremely .powerful, and if you're going to make a standard, you can't go too wrong with .it. .-- .Rich Straka ihnp4!ihlpf!straka . .Avoid BrainDamage: MSDOS - just say no! Check out Qued/M by Paragon Software. It has FULL (much nicer than UN*X) regular expression search/replace capabilities as well as a nicely done macro facility. The macro facility lets you call any MENU command passing it whatever parameters it would otherwise ask for as well as providing some structuring commands (if,for, etc..). It can edit a memory limited number of files. It has support for tags, invisible blocks of text. It comes with a well written (though somewhat terse) manual. It is a fast, powerful and extensible editor. I believe it has autosave as well as backup copies ability. I am a very happy user of Qued/M and base the above on my own impressions. I have nothing at all to do with Paragon Software. -- Yossie Silverman What did the Caspian sea? National Semiconductor Ltd. (Israel) - Saki UUCP: taux01!yossie@nsc.UUCP NSA LSD FBI KGB PCP CIA MOSAD NUCLEAR MI5 SPY ASSASSINATE SDI -- OOCLAY ITAY
cyosta@taux01.UUCP (Yossie Silverman) (10/17/88)
In article <15490@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> steve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield) writes: .In article <6412@ihlpf.ATT.COM> straka@ihlpf.UUCP (55223-Straka,R.J.) writes: .#>In article <15424@agate.BERKELEY.EDU| steve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield) writes: .#>|In article <10402@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU| earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) writes: .#>|#|In article <5606@hoptoad.uucp| tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: .#>|#||What on Earth does vi give you that a good Mac editor doesn't? .#>|#|Tags, automatic backup files. .#>|What Mac Editor has the complex search/replace patterns .#>|available in vi (by far its best feature)? If there is .#>|one, I'm ready for it. Right now I upload to UNIX if .#>|I want to do significant automatic editing of a file. .#> .#>Steve hit it right on the head. It's not vi vs. whatever. It's a general .#>editor capability question: .#> .#>I've never seen anything that comes even close to UNIX(R)'s regular .#>expression matching when it comes to complex search and replace algorithms. .#> .#>Why don't ALL editors and word processors have this (UNIX's) regular .#>expression matching? I know it's complex to implement, but it's extremely .#>powerful, and if you're going to make a standard, you can't go too wrong with .#>it. .#>-- .#>Rich Straka ihnp4!ihlpf!straka .#> .#>Avoid BrainDamage: MSDOS - just say no! . .While we're on the idea of standards and ideal resources, .does anyone know of something similar to SNOBOL for .powerful and flexible pattern matches and rearrangements. .I'd take it on either the Mac or in UNIX generally. .I haven't programmed in SNOBOL for over 15 years, but .I recall it as one of the strongest tools I ever had. A friend of mine is writting (well, completing) a SNOBOL processor which interfaces to REXX under VM (IBM mainframe system). The program is written in standard Pascal and should be portable to Mac/UN*X. I am not sure what it would interface to on the Mac but I am sure something could be managed with, say, HyperCard. I don't know how fast his implementation is but knowing his ability I would guess at good performance. I will ask him about it and report back. If there is a way to make it Mac-usable. I will attempt this and maybe we can put together some ShareWare here. I would like to know how much interest there is so I can figure out my future revenues :-) -- Yossie Silverman What did the Caspian sea? National Semiconductor Ltd. (Israel) - Saki UUCP: taux01!yossie@nsc.UUCP NSA LSD FBI KGB PCP CIA MOSAD NUCLEAR MI5 SPY ASSASSINATE SDI -- OOCLAY ITAY
drc@claris.com (Dennis Cohen) (10/17/88)
In article <6412@ihlpf.ATT.COM> straka@ihlpf.UUCP (55223-Straka,R.J.) writes: > >I've never seen anything that comes even close to UNIX(R)'s regular >expression matching when it comes to complex search and replace algorithms. > Rich, haven't you ever looked at MPW? Its regular expression, search and replace algorithms are at least those of ex's. All the wildcarding, tags, and so forth. Further, you can keep the commands in the worksheet or store them in a script file for future use without having to retype the little buggers, copy and paste, etc. In short, it gives you the ex capabilities with the Mac UI enhancements. Dennis Cohen Claris Corp. ------------ Disclaimer: Any opinions expressed above are _MINE_!
dorourke@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (David M. O'Rourke) (10/18/88)
In article <6412@ihlpf.ATT.COM> straka@ihlpf.UUCP (55223-Straka,R.J.) writes: >I've never seen anything that comes even close to UNIX(R)'s regular >expression matching when it comes to complex search and replace algorithms. As has been posted several times.... MPW has all of UNIX's regualr expression matching & more. From talking to people that have used UNIX for year's and used to swear by it. After learning MPW they say it's at least as GOOD, if not better in many area's. So far no one has mentioned a feature of any Unix editor that's not availible in MPW. -- David M. O'Rourke dorourke@polyslo.calpoly.edu "If it doesn't do Windows, then it's not a computer!!!" Disclaimer: I don't represent the school. All opinions are mine!
dorourke@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (David M. O'Rourke) (10/18/88)
In article <15487@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> steve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield) writes: >Thanks for the response and also to the person who sent me similar >Email. What I meant by "automatic editing" is that in UNIX I can >write a shell script to use ex for complex changes to many files. >Can MPW Shell do that, too? Yes!!! MPW has a full scripting language with variables, piping, redirection of input/output, ect.. MPW is a very close copy of the Unix shell type operation. Having learned UNIX it took me about three days to pickup on MPW. MPW has aliasing, .login type files, search paths, command files, ect, most of the good things of UNIX have been duplicated in MPW. I haven't found any command language type things availible in UNIX that aren't in MPW. The only visible thing missing is Multitasking. >into the right software) is a good and very general spelling >checker (by good I mean that it shows the context, permits a >typed in substitution, permits adding a new word to a dictionary, >and checks files from all word processing programs without >problems. I've used SpellsWell and the built-in checkers in >Microsoft Word 3 and WriteNow and haven't been impressed. But >then UNIX spell isn't too hot, either.) I haven't checked it extensively but I've been VERY impressed with Coach professional. It's a DA with spelling features all over the place. It does everything you mentioned above and more!!! I'd recommend checking it out. -- David M. O'Rourke dorourke@polyslo.calpoly.edu "If it doesn't do Windows, then it's not a computer!!!" Disclaimer: I don't represent the school. All opinions are mine!
peirce@claris.com (Michael Peirce) (10/20/88)
In article <4704@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David M. O'Rourke) writes: >In article <6412@ihlpf.ATT.COM> straka@ihlpf.UUCP (55223-Straka,R.J.) writes: >So far no one has mentioned a feature >of any Unix editor that's not availible in MPW. >-- >David M. O'Rourke dorourke@polyslo.calpoly.edu Let's not get too carried away here. MPW is a fine environment, but no way is the MPW editing environment anywhere near as complete as EMACS. I've used EMACS on many systems (Unix & VMS) and there have been many, many times when I'm working in MPW that I wished I had the versatility that the EMACS environment provided. MPW is getting better, but I hope they put as much work into improving the editor as they have into SADE and Projector (both nice, but don't stop there!). -- michael
straka@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Straka) (10/21/88)
In article <4704@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David M. O'Rourke) writes: |In article <6412@ihlpf.ATT.COM| straka@ihlpf.UUCP (55223-Straka,R.J.) writes: ||I've never seen anything that comes even close to UNIX(R)'s regular ||expression matching when it comes to complex search and replace algorithms. | | As has been posted several times.... MPW has all of UNIX's regualr |expression matching & more. From talking to people that have used UNIX for Slight clarification: I am a USER of my Mac, not a PROGRAMMER who uses it as my base machine. I can do regular expression matching using text editors all day on my UNIX(R) box. What I would like to see is this sort of capability on a WORD PROCESSOR. Sorry about the confusion. -- Rich Straka ihnp4!ihlpf!straka Avoid BrainDamage: MSDOS - just say no!
mce@tc.fluke.COM (Brian McElhinney) (10/21/88)
In article <4704@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David M. O'Rourke) writes: > After learning MPW they say it's at least as GOOD, if not better in many >area's. So far no one has mentioned a feature of any Unix editor that's not >availible in MPW. MPW is much more like emacs than it is like vi. And there are a lot of additional, and very useful, features in GNU Emacs: multiple views of the same file, tags, a byte-compiled/interpreted LISP (MPW does have Yet Another Shell "Language"; wonderful), arbitrary key bindings on a per file basis, smart language modes (great for programming languages), paragraph filling, outlines, a go-to-the-next-compile-error that doesn't get confused when you added lines fixing the previous bug. And already implemented and working too, not something left as an exercise for the programmer. Then there are the missing features you can blame on MacOS limitations. Like editing your documentation while a compile is running. MPW has its strengths when compared to other Macintosh environments, but let's not get carried away with it! Brian McElhinney mce@tc.fluke.com