Fiddly emacs diary question...

[maabaum]

Why is it that diary-block entries that I enter by hand (to save time) do not display properly under the emacs calendar app, but they do if I enter them the "official" way by marking a block of days on the calendar display and entering "i b" and all that stuff? The resulting diary file is supposed to be plain text yes? And the two entries, mine by hand and from emacs look identical, character for character.
eg:

%%(diary-block 9 10 2012 9 30 1012) Bob's trip to LA
%%(diary-block 9 10 2012 9 30 2012) Bob's trip to LA

So why does the one version show up, and the other doesn't?

maab

[hcvv]

You asked about this one in the other thread.

I do not know why you gotn't any answer. Most of the time at least one member will go through the endless standard questions of "Which version of openSUSE, which desktop", etc. Maybe none felt able to do so without some sarcasm (I also find it difficult from time to time to do this in a new, but still polite, way).

I guess the main reason is that nobody ever did what you did. I e.g. am an vi user, never used emacs, so why post here?

[maabaum]

You asked about this one in the other thread.

I do not know why you gotn't any answer. Most of the time at least one member will go through the endless standard questions of "Which version of openSUSE, which desktop", etc. Maybe none felt able to do so without some sarcasm (I also find it difficult from time to time to do this in a new, but still polite, way).

I guess the main reason is that nobody ever did what you did. I e.g. am an vi user, never used emacs, so why post here?

Why post here? Hm, fair question, I guess. Because I use openSUSE on a number of different machines so I look here for answers, and this is a section on Applications, and emacs is an Application and looking at the history there are several other emacs-related questions in this category, so all in all it seemed a reasonable approach at the time.

maab

[hcvv]

Why post here? Hm, fair question, I guess. Because I use openSUSE on a number of different machines so I look here for answers, and this is a section on Applications, and emacs is an Application and looking at the history there are several other emacs-related questions in this category, so all in all it seemed a reasonable approach at the time.

maab

I did not ask why YOU posted here, this is the correct place.

I did ask why I should post here where I am not an emacs user. And I (me) is an example for all of our members that did not post in this your thread for the simple reason that they are no emacs users and thus can not answer anything usefull to your problem.

Language barrier?

[flymail]

I think hcvv would be in agreement with me that it's a fair question, just not one anyone here can answer. Yes, I use
vim (I wonder why you use vi hcvv ?) so cannot answer your question either. You might have more success posting it on
Old Nabble's' Emacs forum: http://emacs.1067599.n5.nabble.com/

[hcvv]

I think hcvv would be in agreement with me that it's a fair question, just not one anyone here can answer. Yes, I use
vim (I wonder why you use vi hcvv ?) so cannot answer your question either. You might have more success posting it on
Old Nabble's' Emacs forum: Emacs

Of course it is a fair question. And it is in the correct place.
But the OP wondered in another thread why he never got any answer and I try to explain that. In the mean time hoping that my action would trigger new attention to the thread (bumb).

Well, I always type

vi txtfile

just out of habit. A habit I have for about 30 years or more now. I guess that what I see then has already many vim features (like syntactic colouring, which I value). But in fact I am still a vi user. And as I guess every vi user does, I use only a subset of it's possibilities, reaching to the manual when I want something special. But that is still a vi man page in an HP-UX Release 10.0 manual.

[flymail]

On 2013-03-19, hcvv <hcvv@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:
> Well, I always type
>
> Code:
> --------------------
> vi txtfile
> --------------------

In which case you are a vim user . If you need proof just try:

vi

.... unless you have manually ripped out vim and put vi in it's place.

But vim is definitely an improvement from vi at the very least for three reasons: syntax highlighting, plugins, and
tabbed/split windows. I've successfully converted a number of vi users to vim, but admittedly after some battling .

[hcvv]

On 2013-03-19, hcvv <hcvv@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:
> Well, I always type
>
> Code:
> --------------------
> vi txtfile
> --------------------

In which case you are a vim user . If you need proof just try:

vi

.... unless you have manually ripped out vim and put vi in it's place.

But vim is definitely an improvement from vi at the very least for three reasons: syntax highlighting, plugins, and
tabbed/split windows. I've successfully converted a number of vi users to vim, but admittedly after some battling .

I have no doubt I in fact use vim as vi user (as I suggested already), but I call myself a vi user, litteraly because I just use the command vi, and further because I only use a subset of vi commands. I wouldn'r recommend others to do like me. Use Kwrite, etc. But I feel at home like I do.

As said, I value the highlighting, as I do much HTML editing and it reveals you many typos.
I do not know of any plugins. What should be pluged in in a mere text editor?
And the tabbed/split windows. You can do the same with your terminal emulator. But I simply use different emulator windows.
Yes, I am an old-fashioned type of user and many of those things that are called features are completely without any understanding for me.

[flymail]

On 2013-03-19, hcvv <hcvv@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:
> I have no doubt I in fact use vim as vi user (as I suggested already),
> but I call myself a vi user, litteraly because I just use the command
> vi, and further because I only use a subset of vi commands. I wouldn'r
> recommend others to do like me. Use Kwrite, etc. But I feel at home like
> I do.

I absolutely agree. Except I recommend kate to KDE users and gedit to GNOME users.

> As said, Ivalue the highlighting, as I do much HTML editing and it
> point reveals you many typos.
> I do not know of any plugins. What should be pluged in in a mere text
> editor?

Hahaha , tell that to an Emacs user! If you have to ask, then perhaps vim isn't for you after all!

> And the tabbed/split windows. You can do the same with your terminal
> emulator. But I simply use different emulator windows.

I'm not sure what you mean by emulator. An advantage of using vim's own split/tabbed windows feature is that the buffers
are coordinated so you yank-paste across different files. Or this may be supported for your terminal emulator windows...
I don't know.

> Yes, I am an old-fashioned type of user and many of those things that
> are called features are completely without any understanding for me.

It depends on how much you want to learn new tricks . I believe just because a program is a console program, this
doesn't mean it (and it's user base) shouldn't evolve and improve! For example, it's a shame that sc never evolved from
what is already an excellent program. And analogously (at least for GNU/Linux), I see no advantage with persisting with
vi restrictions when vim is installed everywhere. But as you say... old dogs ... new tricks .

[hcvv]

On 2013-03-19, hcvv <hcvv@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:
> I have no doubt I in fact use vim as vi user (as I suggested already),
> but I call myself a vi user, litteraly because I just use the command
> vi, and further because I only use a subset of vi commands. I wouldn'r
> recommend others to do like me. Use Kwrite, etc. But I feel at home like
> I do.

I absolutely agree. Except I recommend kate to KDE users and gedit to GNOME users.

> As said, Ivalue the highlighting, as I do much HTML editing and it
> point reveals you many typos.
> I do not know of any plugins. What should be pluged in in a mere text
> editor?

Hahaha , tell that to an Emacs user! If you have to ask, then perhaps vim isn't for you after all!

> And the tabbed/split windows. You can do the same with your terminal
> emulator. But I simply use different emulator windows.

I'm not sure what you mean by emulator. An advantage of using vim's own split/tabbed windows feature is that the buffers
are coordinated so you yank-paste across different files. Or this may be supported for your terminal emulator windows...
I don't know.

> Yes, I am an old-fashioned type of user and many of those things that
> are called features are completely without any understanding for me.

It depends on how much you want to learn new tricks . I believe just because a program is a console program, this
doesn't mean it (and it's user base) shouldn't evolve and improve! For example, it's a shame that sc never evolved from
what is already an excellent program. And analogously (at least for GNU/Linux), I see no advantage with persisting with
vi restrictions when vim is installed everywhere. But as you say... old dogs ... new tricks .

I agree with all you say (especialy about the old dog).
The emulator is of course the terminal emulator, konsole mostly for me, but xterm may do it.

I see the advantage of yanking-pasting between tabs. I now use mostly the mouse, but tabs (the characters, not the vim function) get expanded in spaces then. Visualy nothing is wrong after the paste, but there are no tabs anymore.