|Subject:||RE: "Adobe Brackets like" editing in emacs|
|Date:||Wed, 19 Mar 2014 10:01:04 +0100|
Here is a picture of how it looks like:
I don't know if they have trademark for "quick edit" :-), but since they actually develop Brackets as open source, I hope they keep their terms open source as well. I also hope they didn't patented :).
As Stephan wrote, it could be seen as analogy to a link, but instead of visiting a link the text is pulled into the current buffer under the cursor. I used "intellisense" analogy because I was thinking of context awareness indeed, not of the looks. But link analaogy is indeed better.
I think difference of editing in new window, versus pulling piece of buffer into same window, makeing seemles illusion of editing same file, is workflow
enhacement. If I may take freedom to allude on another such workflow enhacement, I would compare it to difference between Vi and Emacs, and "direct text" editing as in Emacs compared to "command mode" editing as in Vi. I think it is such kind of a difference.
> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 00:00:56 -0400
> From: address@hidden
> To: address@hidden
> CC: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: "Adobe Brackets like" editing in emacs
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> A quick peek+edit in a #include in C, or "use My::Module" in Perl (where
> you can say `perldoc -l My::Module' to find the module file), etc. would
> be handy.
> We already have such features, but they display the other file in
> another buffer. Why is it useful to put them in one buffer?
> What does it look like, to have multiple files in one buffer?
> Dr Richard Stallman
> President, Free Software Foundation
> 51 Franklin St
> Boston MA 02110
> www.fsf.org www.gnu.org
> Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
> Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call.
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|