[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> The power of Emacs comes from being able to write new commands a [...],
> read and modify commands that are already in Emacs.
That is true. That's what "extensible" refers to.
The question is, is it worth spending a few paragraphs on those points:
> You are reading about GNU Emacs,
When I wrote the first Emacs in 1976, these were exciting new advances.
Most users had never imagined such features in an editor.
Maybe today every programmer has seen such features elsewhere, and
responds to that statement with, "ho hum." If so, maybe we should
delete those paragraphs.
On the other hand, maybe the standard of comparison today is something
hardly extensible at all. ISTR that Microsoft Turd has macros; can they
support nontrivial extensions? What about Google Crocks in a browser,
can that support nontrivial extensions?