On Saturday 26 July 2003 13:14, Rick Taylor wrote: > Emacs seems like the ideal interface to me for composing sequences of > symbolic links... If you wanted to tie perl into it you could possibly > do this: > http://john-edwin-tobey.org/perlmacs/src/ I may use emacs, but I don't consider myself an "emacs user". I do all my perl coding in emacs, but stopped having time to mess with elisp about 10 years ago. The only reason I keep using emacs is that ^p, ^n, ^f and ^b et al are burned into my finger muscles by now. Heretical though it may be, I consider it to be just an editor, easily replacable by the likes of jove, mg and jed in a pinch, though I'm enough used to typing things like M-x comment-region that I haven't switched to jed fulltime. I don't like lisp or its siblings or descendents very much (though I thought the implementation in sawfish was useful), and that's what's kept me from picking up Nyquist as well though I expect to use it to customize Audacity in the future. I'll likely come up with some way to generate midi or (better yet) csound files out of perl code one of these days. Maybe I could even generate Nyquist source files so that I could have the benefits of that language without all that Lisp. But I'm a programmer by trade, so it shouldn't be surprising that I am a little more open to that kind of thing than normal musicians. There would be no way in hell I could promote such a solution to my friends and colleagues who own or work at studios or are themselves musicians: people, in other words, who aren't "computer musicians", but who are using computers to record their non-electronic music because it's easier/cleaner/cheaper than tape. Audacity, on the other hand, for quickie jobs (and maybe eventually Ardour for the main job) may be something they could look at and say "Yeah, I could do my work in that." Rob
