brian@norvax.UUCP (Brian Cramer) (02/19/88)
I have been trying out MicroEmacs, GnuMicroEmacs, and Jove on a
VAX 11-750 running 4.3 BSD. I cannot get MicroEmacs to work correctly
for the "WYSE-50" and "Adds Viewpoint" terminals. Could someone please
e-mail me the /etc/termcap entries for those terminals.
In addition, I compiled the IBM-PC version using the Aztec C 8086
3.20e compiler. When I tried to run it on the PC it hangs. Does anyone
have an idea why? Yes I did edit estruct.h, and I set the MSDOS, AZTEC,
and IBMPC switches. I also had the files EMACS.RC, NEWPAGE.CMD, PPAGE.CMD,
WPAGE.CMD, and BPAGE.CMD in my path on the PC.
I was also wondering how compatible MicroEmacs, GnuMicroEmacs, and
Jove are command wise. Can anyone give me a rough estimate?
Thanx in advance,
Brian
--
#include "disclaimer.h"
DIGITAL: ...!uwvax!{nicmad|astroatc}!norvax!brian
ANALOGUE: (414) 563-8456 ext. 267jr@bbn.com (John Robinson) (06/06/89)
In article <8906051517.AA01192@dsys.ncsl.nist.gov>, rbj@dsys (Root Boy Jim) writes: >? From: att!mcdchg!rave!lynn@cis.ohio-state.edu (Lynn D. Newton) >? I did a >? lot of work on my .emacs (248 lines -- too long to quote). > >Yes, but not specifically on your problem. I merely wish to point >out that 248 lines in your .emacs is too much. Remember that .emacs >is not byte compiled, it is much more efficient to put only (load)'s >in there, plus maybe a few variable settings. Put function definitions >in your lisp directory and byte compile them. ... or make a hard or symbolic link from .emacs to .emacs.elc, and put all your stuff in your .emacs.el. Remember to byte-compile the latter when you change it. (The byte-compiler preserves links to the .elc file). I use the following csh alias to avoid carrying the byte-compiler code around in my running emacs: alias elc 'emacs -batch -f batch-byte-compile \!*' setup.el calls, essentially, (load "~/.emacs" t t t) The last t suppresses load's normal behavior of trying .emacs.elc, then .emacs.el, then .emacs. Anyone know why this is the choice, other than speed? (Obviously, would obviate the link). -- /jr, nee John Robinson What a waste it is to lose one's mind--or not jr@bbn.com or bbn!jr to have a mind. How true that is. -Dan Quayle
pearce@tycho.yerkes.uchicago.edu (Eric C. Pearce) (06/06/89)
> ... or make a hard or symbolic link from .emacs to .emacs.elc, and put > all your stuff in your .emacs.el. Remember to byte-compile the latter > when you change it. (The byte-compiler preserves links to the .elc > file). I use the following csh alias to avoid carrying the > byte-compiler code around in my running emacs: > > alias elc 'emacs -batch -f batch-byte-compile \!*' I have the following in my .emacs file, which keeps the real startup code byte compiled for me... (defvar custom-startup-file "~pearce/emacs/emacs") (defun byte-compile-if-newer (file) "Byte compile file.el if newer than file.elc" (if (file-newer-than-file-p (concat file ".el") (concat file ".elc")) (if (string= "pearce" (user-real-login-name)) (byte-compile-file (concat file ".el"))))) (byte-compile-if-newer custom-startup-file) (load custom-startup-file) The extra comparison to user-real-login-name keeps me from byte-compiling if I have su'ed somewhere. -- - Ecp Eric C. Pearce, Yerkes Observatory, University of Chicago. pearce@tycho.yerkes.uchicago.edu or pearce@oddjob.uchicago.edu
kjones@talos.uucp (Kyle Jones) (11/28/89)
[ comp.emacs readers, the article to which I am responding was posted to comp.editors. ] Daniel Q Naiman writes: > I am new to gnu emacs and I am wondering how the experts deal with certain > problems in emacs. For example, > > 1. It seems like a pain to type ESC-X goto-line to move the cursor to > another line. Is it advisable to create one`s own key sequence to do > this, or is there some trick I do not know about for getting the > cursor. Create your own key sequence. C-x g and ESC g are good choices, since the commands that to which these keys are normally bound (inser-register and fill-region respectively) are not commands a beginner would normally use. In particular fill-region is a terrible command to invoke by accident. If you like ESC g, then put (global-set-key "\eg" 'goto-line) in your .emacs file. For C-x g, use (global-set-key "\C-xg" 'goto-line) > The command ESC-X < followed by ESC-number of lines CTRL-n > would work, but that's a lot of typing! Ironically enough, the command goto-line does little more than that, internally. > 2. In the manual to this wonderful PD Software it is indicated that > global search and replace commands are not needed as often in > emacs as they are in other editors. Why is this? If you become proficient with Emacs regular expressions, then you'll be able to do with one global replace command what it would take several commands to do in a lesser editor. That's true enough, although the author of the manual could have chose better words, if that's what he intended to say. > Am I missing some fundamental principle? Again, is it possible > to replace the command ESC-X replace-string ... with a command > with less keystrokes? Yes, just bind the command replace-string to a key. ESC r is a good choice for this, as move-to-window-line (what ESC r is bound to by default) isn't used that often, at least not by me. In fact I've never used it, except to see what it does. > Any hints or references to hints would be greatly appreciated. Read comp.emacs; 99% of the Emacs discussions take place there. As for why comp.emacs isn't called comp.editors.emacs, well, we're working on that. kyle jones <kjones@talos.uu.net> ...!uunet!talos!kjones "Give your analytical hemisphere a break now and then... it's both a candy *and* a breath mint!" --- Cam Spillman
paj@mrcu (Paul Johnson) (02/21/90)
> I can't resist ... Neither can I... > While walking to lunch one day we were berating GNU Emacs for it's >kitchen sink (more like garbage pail) nature and insane size. I poped >out with the quote Emacs was nearly three times the size of the UNIX >kernel, but was capable of all these weird things like editing binaries. > > My friend, who was working on the disk buffer cache code of our >operating system at the time, suddenly went non-linear. He started >raving about how we could ``do a stand alone emacs ... we could graft the >device drivers underneath, it's already got a buffering mechanism ...'' >and went on like this for several minutes. I had a dream last night: I dreamed it was 2100. Everyone was wearing cyber-suits suspended in the air (so you could run around in cyberspace). I connected to the net, introduced myself, and said "Hey guys, what OS are you using these days!" And they said: "GNU Emacs!" -- Paul Johnson | Internet: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc | Phone: +44 245 73331 ext 3216 -------------!------------------.----------!------------------------------- GEC-Marconi Research is not | Don't worry: Baldrick has a Cunning Plan! responsible for my opinions. | (Graffiti on East side of Berlin Wall)
frodo@ncr-fc.FtCollins.NCR.com (David Fletcher) (02/22/90)
baur> From article <48626@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>, by casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom): casey> I can't resist ... baur> Neither can I ... baur> It is interestng that the (very good) emacs variant JOVE, is smaller than baur> vi while providing more features. I happen to like GNUemacs, and am willing to tolerate its size. However, the "best" editor I have ever seen was developed at Edinburgh University and called "top" (or "thief"). It provided multiple windows, incremental regular expression search (using the Boyer-Moore-Gosper algorithm), and a number of other features. It was blazingly fast, ran on a number of machines, written in C, and took only 35K (on a VAX 11/780 running bsd4.2)! Wow! Granted, it didn't have an extension language. However, top/thief at 35K beats JOVE by a fair amount (about 70%). I think the British have long been overlooked in their ability to write software. -- David Fletcher, Advanced Development, NCR Microelectronics 2001 Danfield Court, |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ft. Collins, CO 80525 | "I'm only visiting this planet." (303) 223-5100 x 432 | -- Larry Norman
wsinkees@lso.win.tue.nl (Kees Huizing) (02/26/90)
paj@mrcu (Paul Johnson) writes: >"Hey guys, what OS are you using these days!" >And they said: >"GNU Emacs!" There's only one answer possible if they made real improvement: "???" -- Kees Huizing - Eindhoven Univ of Techn - Dept Math & Comp Sc - The Netherlands DOMAIN: wsinkees@win.tue.nl BITNET: wsdckeesh@heitue5 FAX: +31-40-436685
kannawin@iristip.UUCP (Bill Kannawin) (07/06/90)
Has anyone ported gnu Emacs to SCO's ODT?
sand@dist.dist.unige.it (Giuffrida F.) (12/01/90)
XEMACS WANTED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Who know where to find xemacs write me by e-mail
sand@dist.unige.it
Byepmchale@UUNET.UU.NET (Paul Mchale) (04/04/91)
Following is a configuration of my system
Sun sparcstation 330
Sony color monitor
environment=
TERM=sun
term=sun
There are two problems:
1. Occasionally, if the cursor is placed at the beginning of a line
that has text from column 0 to whatever, and space is pressed,
the text is moved over one space to the right but the character
in the first column is not erased. ie.
12345
then after putting the cursor under the 1 and pressing space:
112345
the same effect is observed with tab, but you would have for the second line
1234512345
where the first 12345 was not erased.
2. Also, we are having a heck of a time defining properly the keyboard.
The C- and ESC- work fine but the cursor, etc keys do not work.
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. After using emacs
at another site, we fell in love and would like to implement emacs
locally.
What we have tried:
1 Copied the sun terminal definitions supllied with emacs over top
of the termcap entry supplied by Sun. No effect.
2 Tried to load sun*.el to define cursors. Message
error: void push. No effect.
3 Made sure that Makefiles are all set propperly.
Thanks for your time.pmchale@UUNET.UU.NET (Paul Mchale) (04/04/91)
Following is a configuration of my system
Sun sparcstation 330
Sony color monitor
environment=
TERM=sun
term=sun
There are two problems:
1. Occasionally, if the cursor is placed at the beginning of a line
that has text from column 0 to whatever, and space is pressed,
the text is moved over one space to the right but the character
in the first column is not erased. ie.
12345
then after putting the cursor under the 1 and pressing space:
112345
the same effect is observed with tab, but you would have for the second line
1234512345
where the first 12345 was not erased.
2. Also, we are having a heck of a time defining properly the keyboard.
The C- and ESC- work fine but the cursor, etc keys do not work.
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. After using emacs
at another site, we fell in love and would like to implement emacs
locally.
What we have tried:
1 Copied the sun terminal definitions supllied with emacs over top
of the termcap entry supplied by Sun. No effect.
2 Tried to load sun*.el to define cursors. Message
error: void push. No effect.
3 Made sure that Makefiles are all set propperly.
4 Tried to load /lisp/term/sun.el in .emacs but makes no difference.
Thanks for your time.par@EAGLE.MIT.EDU (Peter Richards) (05/04/91)
i'm trying to compile gnu emacs here on a siemens nixdorf wx200 (a 386 deskside computer) running sco unix V/386 version 3.2. to compile gnu emacs, one has to build two system-specific header (dot-h) files. these are the "s-" and "m-" files. the s- file reflects the operating-system under which emacs is being compiled. the m- file reflects the machine (hardware). the standard distribution of gnu emacs (version 18.55) contains canned s- and m- files for various machines and operating systems - but not exactly for my situation. the closest files seem to be m-intel386.h (for intel 386 machines) and s-usg5-3.h (for the latest Sys V Unix). when i try to compile with these headers the compilation breaks in the file sysdep.c: the struct tchars is undefined. struct tchars seems to have something to do with the ioctl/termio system. i see the definition on other SysV-like systems here in the file /usr/include/sys/ioctl.h but not on the SCO system. so: i need a different s- file. so has anyone there successfully compiled gnu emacs for sco unix V/386? if so, they could find which s- and m- files are used by looking in the file ...emacs/src/config.h. please reply to par@eagle.mit.edu
harelb@cabot (Harel Barzilai) (05/13/91)
I was extolling the wonders of GNU Emacs to a friend, doing my best to "convert," but the question arose as to whether there is an emacs which would run on his machine. It's an IBM 370 type machine running VM/SP HPO. If you post, please copy me by email [harel@dartmouth.edu] Thanks! Harel
hendrick@ctron.com (Jim Hendrick) (05/15/91)
Wow, now THAT would be a port . . . First, the entire set of unix related system calls can be trashed. Next all that can be redesigned to work in a single-process, non tree structured file system (bag dired, spawning sub-processes, you get the idea). To play the devils advocate for a moment, the default editor on a VM system (XEDIT) is not bad in that realm. I have worked extensively with it and it plays well with the system product interpreter language (REXX) as well as having a reasonable macro facility itself (I wrote an entire "window" user interface including pop-ups etc. using just REXX and XEDIT macros.) Not that it compares with emacs for friendliness (although some would disagree using the "M-x C-\ ESC-footpedal ..." argument). I just wanted to point out the other side of the coin. Tell your friend to learn to live with XEDIT ,or get a job in a unix shop like I did :-).
keb@cci632.cci.com (Ken Bernstein) (05/15/91)
Can someone tell me the most current version of MicroEMACS. I have a copy
of version 3.9; dated 1987, but it doesn't seem to work. Before I spend a
lot of time debugging it, I'd like to know if there is a more current version.
Does anyone have experience with both Freemacs and MicroEMACS and have an
*objective* opinion of the two? Or, is there another shareware EMACS for
MS-DOS boxes that is superior to the two that I have mentioned?
Many thanks to suppliers of usable responses.
Please do not respond to the apparent poster of this article. I mean I've
been after the sysadmin people for only six months to straighten out my
account so I can post news. Respond to the user/address below.
--
Thomas W. Banister
(somewhat intelligent mailers) twb@cci.com
(not so intelligent mailers) ...!{rit,uupsi}!cci632!twbnelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (05/15/91)
In article <1991May14.202420.26958@cci632.cci.com> keb@cci632.cci.com (Ken Bernstein) writes:
Does anyone have experience with both Freemacs and MicroEMACS and have an
*objective* opinion of the two? Or, is there another shareware EMACS for
MS-DOS boxes that is superior to the two that I have mentioned?
Basically, it's like this: Choose Freemacs if you want the best GNU
Emacs emulation and don't need to edit files >64K. Choose MicroEMACS
if you want to be able to run the exact same program on both DOS and
Unix.
--
--russ <nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu> I'm proud to be a humble Quaker.
Clear cutting is criminal, spiking trees is criminal, and using hyperbole of
this magnitude in a serious discussion is criminal. -- Irv Chidseyrobertsr@cs.unca.edu (Ralph Roberts) (05/15/91)
In article <NELSON.91May14222846@sun.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu (aka NELSON@CLUTX.BITNET) writes: >In article <1991May14.202420.26958@cci632.cci.com> keb@cci632.cci.com (Ken Bernstein) writes: > > Does anyone have experience with both Freemacs and MicroEMACS and have an > *objective* opinion of the two? Or, is there another shareware EMACS for > MS-DOS boxes that is superior to the two that I have mentioned? > >Basically, it's like this: Choose Freemacs if you want the best GNU >Emacs emulation and don't need to edit files >64K. Choose MicroEMACS >if you want to be able to run the exact same program on both DOS and >Unix. I agree! Dr. Mark Boyd and I have just spent the past several months immersed in GNU, Freemacs, MicroEmacs and several comercial variants while writing THE UNIX DESKTOP GUIDE TO EMACS (out in August from Howard W. Sams). In my personal setup (I'm a full-time writer) I have both a Unix system and several DOS boxes. I use Freemacs on DOS and GNU on Unix. If there is a DOS file > 64K to edit, just ship it over to the Unix side ;-). So, for what it's worth, there you have my preference. --Ralph -- Ralph Roberts author@cs.unca.edu | The Desktop Guide to Emacs Asheville, N.C. | Compute!'s Computer Viruses (704) 252-9515 | The Veteran's Guide To Benefits (704) 255-8719 (fax) | + 17 other books & 1000s of articles
neves@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (David Neves) (05/16/91)
JOVE will edit files greater than 64K. -- neves@ils.nwu.edu Institute for the Learning Sciences, 1890 Maple, Evanston Il 60201
FelineGrace@cup.portal.com (Dana B Bourgeois) (05/16/91)
To answer the question about memacs version, I just downloaded 3.10 from the Portal archives and I think it was at least a year old. Not sure but definitely not within the last few months. I have heard a rumor that 3.11 is released or about to be released but that is only indistinct muttering and could be the wind in the trees... Dana Bourgeois @ cup.portal.com 3.10 looks REAL good
john@gna.axis-design.fr (John Hughes) (05/17/91)
In article <NELSON.91May14222846@sun.clarkson.edu> nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes: In article <1991May14.202420.26958@cci632.cci.com> keb@cci632.cci.com (Ken Bernstein) writes: Does anyone have experience with both Freemacs and MicroEMACS and have an *objective* opinion of the two? Or, is there another shareware EMACS for MS-DOS boxes that is superior to the two that I have mentioned? Basically, it's like this: Choose Freemacs if you want the best GNU Emacs emulation and don't need to edit files >64K. Choose MicroEMACS if you want to be able to run the exact same program on both DOS and Unix. Well, maybe. But on my cheap XT clone Freemacs keeps hanging, so I stick with the horrid Micro Emacs (well, not realy, now I have Vpix (dos under Unix) so I'm going to use Gnu Emacs, just whip up something to insert & remove those stupid CR's when I load'n'save). John Hughes
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (05/17/91)
In article <JOHN.91May16230345@gna.axis-design.fr> john@gna.axis-design.fr (John Hughes) writes:
Well, maybe. But on my cheap XT clone Freemacs keeps hanging, ...
How about reporting it to me as a bug? Unreported bugs don't get fixed --
I'm not clarivoyant.
--
--russ <nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu> I'm proud to be a humble Quaker.
Clear cutting is criminal, spiking trees is criminal, and using hyperbole of
this magnitude in a serious discussion is criminal. -- Irv Chidseyrandall@Virginia.EDU (Randall Atkinson) (05/17/91)
Originally it was written: > Does anyone have experience with both Freemacs and MicroEMACS > and have an *objective* opinion of the two? Or, is there another > shareware EMACS for MS-DOS boxes that is superior to the two that I > have mentioned? > Apparently not. See below. (Other folks are quoted using %, names omitted to avoid getting personal about this sort of thing :-) <person A> % Basically, it's like this: Choose Freemacs if you want the best GNU % Emacs emulation and don't need to edit files >64K. Choose % MicroEMACS if you want to be able to run the exact same program on % both DOS and Unix. <person B> % Well, maybe. But on my cheap XT clone Freemacs keeps hanging, so I % sick with the horrid Micro Emacs (well, not realy, now I have Vpix % (dos under Unix) so I'm going to use Gnu Emacs, just whip up % something to insert & remove those stupid CR's when I load'n'save). I think that it is terribly unfair to describe MicroEMACS as "horrid." In these modern days, many folks think that GNU EMACS is the only definition of the editor. I beg to differ. While I use GNU EMACS all the time on the Sparcs hereabouts, the "emacs" I first learned was a set of "editing macros" that worked with TECO on a PDP-11 and lisp was nowhere to be found. In the mean time there have been many different native implementations of EMACS using different approaches and having different features. FREEMACS is apparently fairly similar to GNU EMACS, with the limitation of 64K. MicroEMACS is a good solid EMACS that runs on lots of machines and doesn't have the 64K limit, but doesn't try to emulate the GNU dialect and the lisp extension language. MicroEMACS does have a good extension language and lots of folks are happy with it. A third widely used MSDOS alternative is JOVE (Jonathan's Own Version of EMACS), which isn't as extensible but is fast and small and handles more than 64K. The facts are that one's preference in EMACS implementations is a religious issue for most folks. The thing to do is to go grab any or all of these from archive sites on the net and try them out. Use the one that you like best or another if you prefer it. The IEEE POSIX.2 standards group looked into whether the EMACS editor should be included in the standard the way that the vi editor was included. The overwhelming response from the EMACS community was that it should NOT be standardised. Part of this was because there were and are so many variants that one couldn't find a very large common ground out there.
dan@mdbs.uucp (Daniel Lawrence) (05/17/91)
In article <1991May14.202420.26958@cci632.cci.com> keb@cci632.cci.com (Ken Bernstein) writes: > Can someone tell me the most current version of MicroEMACS. I have a copy >of version 3.9; dated 1987, but it doesn't seem to work. Before I spend a >lot of time debugging it, I'd like to know if there is a more current version. Many people are using version 3.9 of MicroEMACS with no problems. Please try to be more specific when you make a statement like this, under what machine/OS does it fail and how does it fail. Also where did you get this version.... a lot of people hack at it and redistribute, not always maintining its functionality. The current distribution version is 3.10 and is available from midas.mgmt.purdue.edu for anonymous FTP outside the hours 8 am to 5pm weekdays (central time). Version 3.11 is in BETA test right now. > Does anyone have experience with both Freemacs and MicroEMACS and have an >*objective* opinion of the two? Or, is there another shareware EMACS for >MS-DOS boxes that is superior to the two that I have mentioned? Well, I would be hard pressed to call me objective.... Freemacs is an MSDOS editor written in assembly code and is very fast. It is built around a language called MINT and is easily extensable using that language. It edits files up to 64K in length. It has very good support (Russ Nelson is on the net and active). MicroEMACS is a very portable editor, running on many different platforms. It has an extention language, and can be customized in many ways. It is written in C and can be easily ported to new machines. I support this editor here and on my BBS. > Thomas W. Banister > (somewhat intelligent mailers) twb@cci.com > (not so intelligent mailers) ...!{rit,uupsi}!cci632!twb Daniel Lawrence voice: (317) 742-5153 arpa: mdbs!dan@ee.ecn.purdue.edu The Programmer's Room Fido: 1:201/10 - (317) 742-5533
ehorne@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Eric) (05/18/91)
I think that EMACS is the best editor ever made ... for Unix. But on the PC side, there is a program called QEDIT, which will edit files bigger the 64K, and has full on-line help and menuing system. I really really like it - all keys are definable. Currently I have a map that is similar to the Turbo Editor keys, but you can redefine it any way you want. Isn't Freemacs/ Micro Emacs a disk/memory hog just like the Unix Version? Anyone else use QEDIT? Check it out sometime, it is really nifty. -Eric
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (05/18/91)
In article <28342a28.48a8@petunia.CalPoly.EDU> ehorne@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Eric) writes:
Isn't Freemacs ... a disk/memory hog just like the Unix Version?
Not that I know of. The executable plus all the MINT code is only 200 KB,
and that includes Fortran-mode, Lisp-mode, and Mail-mode. Typically,
when I shell out to DOS, Freemacs only takes 120 KB (not all the MINT
code is loaded by default).
--
--russ <nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu> I'm proud to be a humble Quaker.
Clear cutting is criminal, spiking trees is criminal, and using hyperbole of
this magnitude in a serious discussion is criminal. -- Irv Chidseyrandall@Virginia.EDU (Randall Atkinson) (05/18/91)
In article <28342a28.48a8@petunia.CalPoly.EDU>, Eric Horne <ehorne@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> writes: >Isn't Freemacs/ Micro Emacs a disk/memory hog just like the Unix Version? No, and neither is JOVE. For that matter, the part of GE where I used to work used MicroEMACS on all its systems (including DOS, VMS, and UN*X). There is no single "Unix version." There are other implementations of EMACS for DOS as well as those mentioned here, but I haven't used them and I try to avoid wild speculation.
r3jjs@VAX1.CC.UAKRON.EDU (Jeremy J Starcher) (05/19/91)
In article <28342a28.48a8@petunia.CalPoly.EDU> ehorne@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Eric) writes: >Anyone else use QEDIT? Check it out sometime, it is really nifty. I use it once in a while.. we have it at work and such.. From what I"ve seen it *is* great, although I'd rather use the same editor on all the machines I use (Atari, IBM, unix, Macintosh, etc) so I tend to stay with the Emacs clones so I don't get too confused. -- --------------------------+--------------------------------------------------- Jeremy J Starcher ! No programmer programs in LOGO after reaching r3jjs@vax1.cc.uakron.edu ! age 14... r3jjs@akronvm.bitnet !
dan@mdbs.uucp (Daniel Lawrence) (05/21/91)
In article <JOHN.91May16230345@gna.axis-design.fr> john@gna.axis-design.fr (John Hughes) writes: >Well, maybe. But on my cheap XT clone Freemacs keeps hanging, so I >stick with the horrid Micro Emacs (well, not realy, now I have Vpix >(dos under Unix) so I'm going to use Gnu Emacs, just whip up >something to insert & remove those stupid CR's when I load'n'save). > >John Hughes Well, if you add the following to your emacs.rc file for that horrid MicroEMACS: set $lterm 10 it will do exactly that, translating <LF> to <RET><LF> on reading and translating <RET><LF> to <LF> on writing. (Any version from 3.10 forward). Daniel Lawrence voice: (317) 742-5153 arpa: mdbs!dan@ee.ecn.purdue.edu The Programmer's Room Fido: 1:201/10 - (317) 742-5533
molnar@neis.UUCP (Christopher Molnar) (05/24/91)
I seem to remember a command line prompt that will put micro-emacs into a text mode (one including a word wrap feature, as well as margins). Can anyone out there tell me what this command is, or if it isn't a command line, how I might do this from inside the program? Thanks for the help! ---------- Christopher J. Molnar uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!neis!molnar New England Information Services molnar@neis.UUCP New England Inventory Systems ------------------------------- 345 State Street #3F Ask about NEIS V1.1 BBS Albany, New York 12210 a full function *nix BBS Package -------------------------------------------------------------------------