Re: A radical idea: a new XyWrite

[Harry Binswanger hb@xxxxxxxx]

Kari,

Excellent points. A souped-up XyWrite would be the best. Getting NB to
run U2 might be the only thing required. Except that I've been trying to
buy Dave E's time to do that for a couple of years now. Steve Siebert has
not opposed that arrangement, but there's no motion.

I wrote a couple of chapters of my last book using NB 9, and it was fine
if you don't need to use much XPL.

Regards,
Harry



> Harry,
>
> The most important reason may be just that we are used to this tool.
> There are better text editors, command-line operated text processors,
> other very customizable word or text processing solutions. Speed is no
> longer an issue. But why change your ways when there is XyWrite which has
> not changed in decades? So, do we really want a new XyWrite, or more of
> the same with some technical adjustments to things more modern than
> DOS?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Kari Eveli
> LEXITEC Book Publishing (Finland)
> lexitec@xxxxxxxx
>
> *** Lexitec Online ***
> Lexitec in English:
> http://www.lexitec.fi/english.html; eudora="autourl">
> http://www.lexitec.fi/english.html
> Home page in Finnish:
> http://www.lexitec.fi/; eudora="autourl">
> http://www.lexitec.fi/
>
> > There are three main reasons why
> > I, at least, want to stick with XyWrite:
> > 1. XPL (and U2)
> > 2. Command line operation
> > 3. Infinite customizability
> > Now, if we're talking about creating a text editor from scratch, I'm
> > speculating that 2 and 3 are easily achieved.