Tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I understand the point about Emacs being as "graphical" as anything else > in a certain way, but I can't believe *you* don't understand what I > meant with "graphical". :-)
If mouse control, menus, tool bars, images in buffers, and being built with a widget toolkit (often Xaw) doesn't qualify, you'll have to be a bit more specific. It's true that the main text area doesn't use any toolkit's standard text editing widget. That's not uncommon, I don't think OpenOffice.org does either. For that matter, Netscape doesn't really use _any_ standard toolkit, yet it's considered graphical. If the fact that it doesn't qualify as graphical is a big reason you'd avoid one of the most capable editors there are, the developers would probably like to know what they're missing so that they can address it. (And yes, as someone else mentioned, the CVS version cab be built against GTK. Hopefully, there will be a release someday....) -- Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - I am the rocks. It takes leather balls to play rugby. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
