[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: simple editor required
From: |
Paul Edwards |
Subject: |
Re: simple editor required |
Date: |
Fri, 06 Jun 2003 06:15:19 GMT |
"Kai Großjohann" <kai.grossjohann@gmx.net> wrote in message
84of1c78ka.fsf@lucy.is.informatik.uni-duisburg.de">news:84of1c78ka.fsf@lucy.is.informatik.uni-duisburg.de...
> "Paul Edwards" <kerravon@nosppaam.w3.to> writes:
>
> > ... didn't stop this auto-file-association from happening? I basically
> > don't want emacs to do any junk like that, I'm not interested in its
> > assumptions, I'm after basic editting functions, rather than by
> > default being launched into its weird ideas of what C code should
> > look like (which is probably a style used by less than 10% of
> > C programmers).
>
> Please try typing C-c . in a C file, then use tab completion to find
> the different alternatives. Try them. Maybe you find one which is
> close to what you like. When you have it, it can be tweaked some
> more to get closer.
>
> It's not always possible to get the *exact* indentation you specify,
> but I find that syntax-driven indentation helps me so much with my
> work that I just adapt my coding style to the way Emacs likes it.
> For example, the indentation can tell me right away that a brace is
> missing or too many.
The thing is, the code that I am changing is not just one style,
I have to match the code that I am editting. So I would rather
just have very basic editting working by default. ie I don't
mind have to press space 4 times after typing a "{", but I do
mind having to type 20 spaces after a "{".
Officially I am expected to use vi "the standard editor", but
I don't know the commands for it, and I hate it. Every place I
go to has had emacs installed, often unofficially, so I have
been able to use that, and get most of the commands I am
familiar with from micro-emacs. But I can't complain to the
sysadmins etc that I need a new version, and I'm not meant to
be spending time mucking around with that either.
All I want is for the basic editting functions to work, at least
consistently within each emacs version, if not identical to
micro-emacs. I'll worry about fancy features like C indentation
another day. I have been given a few things to try to see if I can
get closer to that goal.
Particularly frustrating is when something like the "del" key
doesn't do what I expect (not just what I expect, but what other
versions of emacs do when the appropriate command is
given). As I turn up to a new job, don't know how to use vi,
and it appears that I don't even know how to delete a character.
If I have micro-emacs (or emacs was consistent between
versions so my .emacs did the right thing), it wouldn't be a
problem.
BFN. Paul.
- RE: simple editor required, (continued)
- RE: simple editor required, Dmitri . Minaev, 2003/06/03
- Re: simple editor required, Paul Edwards, 2003/06/03
- Re: simple editor required, Peter Lee, 2003/06/03
- Re: simple editor required, Kevin Rodgers, 2003/06/03
- Re: simple editor required, kgold, 2003/06/03
- Re: simple editor required, Jon Kåre Hellan, 2003/06/03
- Re: simple editor required, Kai Großjohann, 2003/06/05
- Re: simple editor required,
Paul Edwards <=
- Re: simple editor required, Eli Zaretskii, 2003/06/06
- Re: simple editor required, Harry Putnam, 2003/06/06
- Message not available
- Re: simple editor required, Peter Lee, 2003/06/06
- Re: simple editor required, Harry Putnam, 2003/06/06
- Message not available
- Re: simple editor required, Peter Lee, 2003/06/06
- Re: simple editor required, David Masterson, 2003/06/09
- Re: simple editor required, kgold, 2003/06/11
- Re: simple editor required, Eli Zaretskii, 2003/06/11
- Message not available
- Re: simple editor required, Benjamin Rutt, 2003/06/11
- Re: simple editor required, Kin Cho, 2003/06/11