amigo@milton.u.washington.edu (The Friend) (04/25/91)
I'm currently in progress on a basic text editor. If anyone can
provide some source code to an editor, it'd help considerably (editors
aren't easy to design).
Thanks,
--
--------------------------------------///------------------------------------
/// amigo@milton.u.washington.edu
*********** ///
- SPACE OPEN FOR LEASE - \-\_/// Amigas really do it better...Dan_Jacobson@ATT.COM (04/27/91)
>>>>> On 25 Apr 91 02:42:17 GMT, amigo@milton.u.washington.edu (The Friend) said:
The> I'm currently in progress on a basic text editor. If anyone
The> can provide some source code to an editor, it'd help considerably
The> (editors aren't easy to design).
pick up GNU Emacs from prep.ai.mit.edumeissner@osf.org (Michael Meissner) (04/29/91)
In article <DANJ1.91Apr27033327@cbnewse.ATT.COM> Dan_Jacobson@ATT.COM writes: | >>>>> On 25 Apr 91 02:42:17 GMT, amigo@milton.u.washington.edu (The Friend) said: | | The> I'm currently in progress on a basic text editor. If anyone | The> can provide some source code to an editor, it'd help considerably | The> (editors aren't easy to design). | | pick up GNU Emacs from prep.ai.mit.edu While I am an ardent GNU emacs and epoch user, I would say GNU emacs is definately not a basic text editor, and it's internals can be complex (trust me, I've ported it to 3 different machines, and wrote unexec for two object file formats). Something like mg might be better. I seem to remember that there articles last year about either MIT tech reports or books from the MIT Press about the general editor design issues. Also, I am probably wrong, but the original article smells like a Comp Sci homework assignment.... -- Michael Meissner email: meissner@osf.org phone: 617-621-8861 Open Software Foundation, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA, 02142 Considering the flames and intolerance, shouldn't USENET be spelled ABUSENET?