Winston Gutkowski wrote:
Adam Scheller wrote:Yesterday in a newspaper I found that the picture below got sold on an action. Try to guess for how much it got sold, in EUR? I cannot tell the name of the artist because that would make things easier
Sepp Blatter? (I noticed the corrupted '$' sign)
If so, I'm sure one of his cronies would stump up a million to help pay his legal fees...
Tim Holloway wrote:The bad thing about vi is that if you sneeze while seated at the keyboard, you've probably managed to press random keys, and just about any random key sequence is a (probably dangerous) vi command. Which, to compound the injury, will probably get executed, since command mode is the default vi editor mode.
Tim Holloway wrote:Emacs also has the additional virtual in that it's easier to run in an independent window, so when I want to do an edit-and-test cycle on a script, I can spawn an Emacs session from the same command window that I'm running the test script in. Vi's natural state is to own that window, so it's a series of start-vi, edit, save/quit, test, repeat. Of course REAL Emacs diehards simply run the script inside a command-line pane within Emacs, but I don't usually have the patience for that.
Tim Holloway wrote:The Emacs macro language is Lisp, so you can feel like an old-school hacker when customizing it.
Tim Holloway wrote:On the mixed-blessing side, Emacs leaves behind a "before" image of the file being edited. This was more important back before git, when sometimes the best way to get out of a hole was to pretend you never dug it. But all those backup files tend to clutter directories until you get around to deleting them.
Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:
Adam Scheller wrote:I have missed Jeanne's response when I did my last post.
I posted a whole 3 minutes before you . You were probably already typing when I posted it.