[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: enriched-mode and switching major modes.

From: Oliver Scholz
Subject: Re: enriched-mode and switching major modes.
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:37:17 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3.50 (windows-nt)

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

>> It is basically as you said: you express your intents.  But rather
>> than doing this via a command or markup language, you do it by
>> interacting with a UI.
> It's a false dichotomy: Emacs on a tty is a UI.
> I guess what you mean to say here is that rather than representing the
> intent as text you'd represent it somehow graphically.

This is nitpicking.  By UI I meant to say that you issue a command M-x
set-the-type-of-this-paragraph.  Or hit `C-u 4 C-c C-i'
(indent-this-paragraph).  Or click on the "Make this italic" button in
the tool bar.  Or whatever.  Since things like this can be---and in
fact are---provided by modes for editing your "deep representation",
you might say that the difference is that this is the /only/ way to
express your intent.  The point is that you express your intent while
not caring about the particular encoding.

>> This abstracts your intent from a specific file format ("deep
>> representation").
> So you don't actually get to see the abstract representation, even though
> that's really what you're editing.  I.e. you're still editing somewhat
> blind-folded.

"somewhat blind-folded" is a vast exaggeration.

> You're trying to strike a balance between WYSIWYG and plain text.

I can not parse that sentence.  It makes absolutely no sense to me.

>> The benefit is that you do this while looking at the "surface
>> expression".
> With something like WhyzzyTeX I get to edit while seeing (rather than
> "looking at") the surface expression.

I think I already understood that you like this way of editing.  Now,
it seems that I also have to understand that in your view this is the
Only True Way of Editing.

Do you really think, that /I/ or anybody else who wants "word
processing" in Emacs would be content with WhyzzyTeX-style functionality?

A gedankenexperiment: Suppose we have the inverse of WhizzyTeX: you
edit the visual appearance WP-style and Emacs would constantly update
the encoded document in a read-only buffer and show it in another
window.  Would /you/ be content with that?  Well, /I/ would like it,
though I'd probably hit C-x 1.

O.k. more precise rephrasing: the benefit is that all editing actions
take place in a buffer that only shows the "surface expression".

Oliver Scholz               Jour des Récompenses de l'Année 212 de la Révolution
Ostendstr. 61               Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité!
60314 Frankfurt a. M.       

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]