On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Kris Maglione <maglion...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 11:15:11AM +0100, markus schnalke wrote: >> >> [2009-11-05 04:18] Kris Maglione <maglion...@gmail.com> >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 09:13:56AM +0000, Anselm R Garbe wrote: >>> > >>> >Yes it's a shame. I think a suckless editor would simply be some kind >>> >of a viewer that integrates the real ed. In a sense vi done right. >>> >>> It's called Sam. >> >> The problem with sam is that it depends on a graphical display. If >> there is none available it's just like ed (with some extensions). >> >> As ed lives everywhere, while sam does not, I rather user ed. > > Sam has a documented protocol. It doesn't rely on a graphical display at all > (although it does work rather nicely with a remote sam and a local graphical > samterm). A curses client could easily be written. It still wouldn't be as > efficient over the network as the graphical client, though. > > The main benefit of sam over ed is structural regexps, and filewise rather > than linewise regexps. ed can be a pain in the ass in that regard at times. > Even if sam doesn't live everywhere, I prefer it where it's available.
The client-server design is also a big win when editing files over slow connections. As much as I hate curses, I think the idea of having a curses interface for the sam protocol would be interesting and perhaps even useful, sam -d is a bit 'hardcore', and sadly rio terminals are not as prevalent as one would like... uriel > -- > Kris Maglione > > Plenty of kind, decent, caring people have no religious beliefs, and > they act out of the goodness of their hearts. Conversely, plenty of > people who profess to be religious, even those who worship regularly, > show no particular interest in the world beyond themselves. > --John Danforth, priest, ambassador, senator (b. 1936) > > >
