2009/11/5 Uriel <lost.gob...@gmail.com>: > 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...
That sounds like an a good idea, please add this to the future projects section. Potentially we will find someone in next years attempt for GSoC who can hammer that in. Kind regards, Anselm
