Re: XyLose err Win

["David Firestone" fstone@xxxxxxxx]

That's my point, too -- there are many different ways of looking at a
program, and for many of us, XyWin isn't nearly that bad. Thus far, I've
never had any need to append a footnote, and I pray that day will never
come.
------------
David Firestone
City Hall bureau
The New York Times
fstone@xxxxxxxx

----------
> From: Bob Brody 
> To: xywrite@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: XyLose err Win
> Date: Friday, February 07, 1997 7:58 AM
>
> On 7 Feb 97 at 11:48, David Firestone wrote:
>
> > For me, XyWin is the ideal Windows
> > writing program, in that it unobtrusively produces clean ASCII
> > copy, is completely customizable, and most importantly has a
> > command line.
>
> Actually it's not completely customizable (far from it; I can't
> even get the display to stay in the mode I want to use), but for
> command-driven plain ASCII text software there are text editors
> aplenty to choose from. Gnu Emacs for Windows, for instance,
> which is not only free, it comes with the source code for the
> ultimate in completely customizable. (I think they charge a few
> dollars for the 32 bit Windows 95 version.) When I wrote
> editorial for the Los Angeles Herald I used an ASCII editor that
> could fit on a 360k floppy and still have plenty of room for a
> month's columns. Writing short stories and straight text for
> ASCII electronic transfer is a breeze in Emacs. But I do have
> call for more document complexity which is why I bother with a
> features-oriented word processor. Notes, annotations, tables
> extraction, block linking, column alignment, Styles, among other
> things, make a word processor the right tool for the job. For
> plain-text, however, lesser tools suffice.
>
> Bob