[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nano-devel] alternative anchoring: allowing to set multiple "bookma

From: David Ramsey
Subject: Re: [Nano-devel] alternative anchoring: allowing to set multiple "bookmarks"
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 07:46:29 -0600

Replying to points you both make...

Benno Schulenberg:
> Furthermore, those editors most likely want to offer the most
> versatile mechanism possible, not caring much about how much code or
> memory this requires.

There is *nothing* wrong with versatility.  As for whether the authors
of those other editors don't care much about code or memory usage,
you're effectively telling them what they think, as well.

> Nano is a *simple* and small editor.  It offers basic and simple
> features.  And when it offers something that is a little more
> advanced, it offers a simple version of it.

"Simple" to me means "easy enough for most non-power users to deal
with", not "bare minimum functionality".  (Except for tiny mode, of
course, but that's a special circumstance.)

Brand Huntsman:
> You keep using "simple and small" to justify half-assing features.

Exactly (unfortunately).

> Nano is growing larger and not actually gaining useful features that
> anyone other than yourself can use.

To be fair, some of the features added are somewhat useful, even though
they could definitely be improved.

> Do it right or don't do it at all.

Exactly, as *I've* said before.

> For the record, Marco's version is better and more useful, but I
> wouldn't use either one. I place numerous markers in my files, similar
> to your XXX example. Your incomplete anchoring is worthless for my use
> case, it doesn't even preserve the anchor after returning to it.

Preserving the anchor after returning to it would be more useful, yes.

> As I've said before, more effort should be spent on scripting than on
> worthless features that could be implemented via proper scripting.

I'd agree with this only up to a point.  Allowing for scripting is
useful, but requiring it for certain functionality (if I understand what
you mean) is going too far from what I figure "simple" means.

As in, if I wanted an editor that required scripting for some major
functionality, I'd be using ed, and I wouldn't have started on nano.
The same would apply for en editor that required major code additions to
gain proper functionality.  Either way, something that would have kept
me from starting on nano and reduced me to working with ed or similar
editors is *not* a good thing.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]