[SunRescue] Should an editor require you to think?

[Graham Hughes]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

>>>>> "Joshua" == Joshua D Boyd <jdboyd at cs.millersville.edu> writes:

    Joshua> And where I come from, there are other people who use VI
    Joshua> combined with the above mentioned accessories for word
    Joshua> processing.

Speaking as someone who writes almost everything he does in emacs,
emacs + troff works like a charm.  Other people can substitute other
editors, of course.

You have to be willing to learn formatting codes, of course, but I
like troff a little more than I like LaTeX, and both of them are heads
and shoulders over programs like Word--they get ligatures right
without me specially instructing them to, for example, and don't
randomly fuck up my text the way Word tends to.  HTML with CSS can get
acceptably beautiful now, in the right browser (of course...).

Of course, I'm not *really* normal that way.  I'm seriously
considering writing my own TeX macro package, for example.

Anyway, experimental evidence has suggested to others and suggests to
me that word processors do to words what food processors do to food.
- -- 
Graham Hughes <ghughes at lynda.com>
(defun whee (n e) (subseq (let ((c (cons e e))) (nconc c c)) 0 n))
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5 and Gnu Privacy Guard <http://www.gnupg.org/>

iD8DBQE6pvY88i4DkPg349kRAuqSAJ9xcBzEHNJ0FaSyVeC4sclByxQ3iQCgxZ7R
cDVHpcJeykm0ItxbQxoDViE=
=C2qJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----