Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:45:10 -0400
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
From: "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Combined reply
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

At 02:25 AM 4/23/05 -0400, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>Tom Haughey wrote:
>
>> There's no fly.
>
>Does anyone really use one?

Yes.

>Mike Bartman wrote:
>
>> (The nice folks at Hormel would really like us to talk about UCE
>> instead of spam, but it ain't gonna happen.)

No, I didn't.  That was Steve Smith.  Trimming is good, but not if you lose
the correct attributions.  The above was part of what I quoted from Steve's
message.

>> If you want an idea what TPU macros look like, ...
>
>I'm familiar with TPU.  I was one of its beta testers in 1984.  Emacs
>is more powerful.  Just try binding a TPU command to ^C, ^Q, ^S, ^X,
>or ^Y.

Those are handled by the terminal driver on VMS I think, and passed to the
supervisor.  You can request that that not happen, but since it's normal
behavior on VMS you shouldn't do that without good cause.  There are plenty
of other control combinations you can take over for defining commands.  I
usually use ^v since I don't use the function usually attached to it and
it's conveniently located.

Emacs and TPU appear to be about equally powerful, but different.  The main
difference that interests me is that TPU has easier to remember commands
that usually involve fewer fingers.  I'm also not interested in programming
in Lisp, which I've heard is emacs "macro" language.  TPU's makes more
sense to me.

-- Mike B.
--
It's tourist season?  Ok then, what's the bag limit?