Re: [Bug-apl] Calling external editor from APL session

[Alexey Veretennikov]

Hi,

Yes Emacs support is great but what to do whith the people who don't use
emacs (or can't use it comfortably for some reasons, like absense of
Alt/Meta key or being on low-performance device).
Blake's editor is just probably too old school :) 

I will try to follow the Kacper's approach combining with calling
external 'xterm' with the editor.

The Dyalog has convenient built-in fullscreen editor even in console
mode which you can close by hitting Esc key applying changes, see
example screenshot attached.

dyalog-editor.png
Description: PNG image

Juergen Sauermann <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi Alexey,
>
> we already have Elias' emacs support for GNU APL, which I believe is a good 
> replacement
> for IBM's built-in full-screen editor (aka editor 2). And a number of other 
> editors have been
> proposed in the past, for example Blakes's editor (see
> http://www.gnu.org/software/apl/Community.html).
>
> The named editor in APL2 uses a similar approach as ⎕FIO combined with 
> popen() or )HOST.
> I would therefore argue that the support of different editors in GNU APL 
> (with some additional
> wrappers like Kacper's) is at least as good as in APL2, and that emacs as a 
> quasi built-in editor
> is even better than that in APL2.
>
> I have no idea how Dyalog does it but I would guess that their approach for 
> arbitrary editors (as
> opposed to built-in ones) is similar to that of APL2 or GNU APL.
>
> /// Jürgen
>
> On 12/20/2016 07:16 PM, Alexey Veretennikov wrote:
>
>  Actually it is a great thread, I also agree with Christian what the
> full-text editor support should be a part of interpreter (as it is in
> IBM APL2 and Dyalog).
>
> Kacper Gutowski <address@hidden> writes:
>
>  On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:30:14AM +0100, Alexey Veretennikov wrote:
>
>  Using )HOST Vim complains "Vim: Warning: Output is not to a terminal"
> and not really useful (can't see what I type for instance).
> Same if I use popen() via ⎕FIO.
>
>
> )HOST and popen are essentially the same thing and they both capture
> output of the command you are running.  But as they take command to
> be interpreted by shell, you can explicitly redirect output to the
> terminal yourself:
>
>       )HOST vim >/dev/tty
>
> In case of vim, which reinitializes terminal settings itself and isn't
> bothered by having echo disabled, this is everything you need to make
> it work.
>
> See also <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-apl/2016-03/msg00138.html>
> for working proof-of-concept implementation of what Jürgen wrote.
>
> -k
>
>
>

-- 
Br,
/Alexey