In article <email@example.com> firstname.lastname@example.org (Steinar Bang) writes:
| Xref: hplntx comp.lang.scheme:12938 alt.lang.scheme.scsh:128
| From: email@example.com (Steinar Bang)
| Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme,alt.lang.scheme.scsh
| Date: 12 Jan 1996 10:39:11 +0100
| Organization: AT&T GIS Norge AS, Horten, Norway
| Lines: 13
| Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
| References: <email@example.com>
| NNTP-Posting-Host: balder.metis.no
| Mime-Version: 1.0
| Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
| X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.0.12
| IMHO it would be better to incorporate emacs-like editing features,
| than to sacrifice a lot on the altar of terseness.
| It doesn't really matter if the parantheses are there if you don't
| have to count them, or ensure that they're balanced.
| Starting out with a paris of balanced parantheses, and the cursor
| positioned between them have been mentioned. Other things that can be
| done is to define a typed '(' to mean: output "()" and position the
| cursor between them, auto-balancing and so forth.
| I'd accept typing \( or \) to get actual paranteses, should I need
I'm confused. Why don't you just run your shell interactively under
Emacs/Edwin and use the ordinary Scheme-mode commands (e.g. "M-(") to
do exactly that?
I've never figured out why you need any editting junk in your shell
once you can run it under a real text/program editor.
About the only times that I use a window with a shell these days is
when I'm about the replace my Emacs executable because the version of
Unix that I happen to use does not let me replace a running