Nano 2.4.0 problem

Tony Baechler tony at
Tue Jun 9 08:47:56 UTC 2015

Not that it matters much now, but I'll address your points below.  Even
though I've switched to NE, I still like to keep an open mind and consider
all of my available options.

On 6/7/2015 12:47 PM, Tim Chase wrote:
> On June  7, 2015, Tony Baechler wrote:
>> 2. Upgrade to nano-tiny 2.4.1 and hope I don't need the fully
>> featured version of Nano.
> Just so you know what you'd be missing, nano-tiny lacks the following:

Yes, I found this out the hard way.  I don't need mouse ability, but I do
use line wrap and a lot of the other features.  That isn't a good long-term

>> 3. Ditch Nano entirely.  I'm leaning more and more toward the
>> later.  Does anyone here have any suggestions?  Please don't
>> suggest vi, emacs and clones.  I'm not interested in either one of
>> those and there are lots of clones of both if I want to go that
>> route.
> I'm a big advocate of vi/vim since it's what I use and it's everywhere
> (I don't have to install it). Others speak highly of emacs, but
> it sounds like you've considered both and don't want to go down
> either road.  There are other editors out there though.  I've
> recently seen buzz about Slap
> which touts itself as "like Sublime Text, but in a terminal window".
> I haven't had cause to try it, but it sounds promising to those who
> don't care for the complexities of vi/vim or emacs.

It isn't that I want simple.  I actually don't mind learning an editor,
especially if it works, is accessible and does what I want and need.  I
actually did spend a fair bit of time with Emacs and Emacspeak.  The two
things I didn't like (the "break" features, to use your terminology) are
that it takes forever to start and most functions require two keys or key
combinations.  I've only had frustration with vi and clones and I do my best
to avoid them at all costs.  I guess either I'm lazy or the learning curve
is too much for my taste.

> There's also "ne" (which reading later in the thread, you've tried),
> "joe", "jed", "the", "lpe", and "jupp" which come to mind.

Yes, I tried JOE and I didn't like it.  It is too hard to set up the way I
want.  I can't just edit .joerc, I have to edit .jpicorc and several other
files if I want all of the interfaces to act the same.  In other words, if I
want to use the Pico key bindings offered by JOE, it's a separate file which
I must edit.  Also, I have to press Enter twice when searching, first to end
the string for which I'm searching and second to tell it to actually search.
 That gets old fast, especially if you have to do it more than a few times.
 I saw no way around this.  Even with the Pico mode and different key
bindings, it had the same problem.  Besides, it has the same status bar
issue as NE, although it also lets you turn the status bar off.  I haven't
heard of Slap and I don't think Debian packages it.

> I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention ed, ex, or edbrowse which might
> play better with a screen-reader or braille output.  But they're a
> lot more obscure as editors go.  I have a soft spot for ed & ex, so
> would be glad to answer questions you have there.  I haven't used
> edbrowse, but understand it's similar to ed only with more
> functionality.

I did look at edbrowse.  It's actually a web browser with editing ability
and an interface similar to ed, so it's misclassified as an editor in my
opinion.  If I wanted to use something like ed, I would use vi instead.  I
don't like that interface style, even though it's very historic.  Yes,
edbrowse was written for accessibility specifically and should work great
with Braille.

> Also, if you broaden your options to GUI editors, others might be
> able to speak to accessibility there.

No, I don't have X installed on any of my machines and I spend most of my
time on servers, so that isn't a practical option.

More information about the Blinux-list mailing list