Michael Conlen wrote:

>I just hope that the vi port to Squeak is not vim... ...port emacs all you
>want, just no vim, please :)
>

Sorry, it is modelled on vim. At the risk of a little scorching, why is 
VI ok but not VIM?

In defense of SVI (I did write it, after all), it has a couple of 
 features that I've seen mentioned as some of  the strong aspects of 
emacs. First, it can take multikey bindings, which are mapped to 
selectors. This is a subtle point, but is emphasized in emacs' docs -- 
eg. you're not really calling 'j' when you hit 'j' -- you are calling 
the selector "#doLineDown".  Second, emacs is often touted because you 
have LISP at your disposal. SVI has a similar feature that VI and VIM 
don't have, except instead of LISP it's Squeak. The 2 things combined 
make SVI very malleable.

I've not used emacs enough to get the gestalt of the beast, but I'm 
going to presume that your average emacs adherent's objection to VI goes 
beyond the keybindings chosen. (If it *is* that simple, an option to SVI 
to use emacs-ish keybindings can easily be added).  I'm interested in 
hearing from the cult of emacs -- what would have to be added to SVI to 
make it more palettable to you?

Sincerely,
Steve S.

>
>
>--
>Groove On Dude
>Michael Conlen
>Obfuscated Networking
>meconlen at obfuscated.net
>
>
>