Re: e3

I have looked at e3 recently, it is about a parsec away from being
enough for what I want.  I want someone used to using vi to be able
to operate without any surprises.  I'm reasonably happy with the 65K
Elvis that I have now.  If I could find a sub 50K emacs that supported
multiple buffers and most of the emacs navigation, I would include
that, too.  It is amazing exactly how much of recovery work ends up
being in an editor, e3 just isn't worth the sacrifice.  It might be
good to use *in addition* to vi, for users of pico and other crippled
editors like wordstar and emacs.  I go in e3 and withn the first few
keystrokes I type something like ":%s/^x/y/g" and it upchucks.  Don't
forget the design philosophy from the FAQ:

	try to make it behave like a normal system

-Tom


On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 [email protected] wrote:

> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:12:31 +0200
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [tomsrtbt] e3
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> did you look at the e3 editor, lately? There were quite some changes
> since the last debate on this list. It now can mimic vi, emacs, pico,
> nedit and wordstar and the binary is 9407 here. Thus you could include a
> vi-like and a emacs-like editor for tomsrtbt with just one binary :o)
> Well, the search function is still not quite vi-like :o(
>
> jps
>