bug#43633: 28.0.50; Include definitions in glossary for: extensible, customizable, self-documenting, real-time display editor

[Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support>]

* Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> [2020-09-28 07:58]:
> > What do others think?  Should we delete the "display" in "display editor"?
> 
> Yes.  I don't even know what it means.  A guess is that
> a nondisplay editor is one that doesn't use a display
> (e.g., monitor) - like old teletype line-oriented editors.
> I guess `ed' or `sed' would be an example of a nondisplay
> editor.

Yes. I think so.

I remember that first computers did not have monitors. Calculations
have been entered on keyboard on a large box kind of a table
(computer) and output went to printer, the printer was printing all
the time. One could make nice Betty Boop pictures and other erotic
cartoons all made out of letters and numbers. I am sure that some type
of editor existed back at that time.

But the word "display" may not be directly related to monitor, rather
to simple displaying, as full term was "real-time display" which would
mean, it changes text in the moment when you see it being changed and
it displays text in the moment when you have changed it.

Then when monitors arrived, there were probably editors like stream
editor sed or ed as line editor, I ma just guessing, and the standard
GNU line editor "ed"

If I wish to edit with "ed" I would say:

$ ed file

but then nothing would happen, nothing would be displayed. I would
need to do something like:

i
New line written here
.
w
22
q

then the line "New line written here" would be in the file, as I saved
it with "w" for 22 bytes, and quit with "q"

Now, at the moment of writin the "New line written here", the line was
maybe part of the text, I do not know, but it was not displayed in
real time.

Thus "real time display" editor is (probably) comparison to line
editors. This comparison was useful back in time, today it is hard to
explain to people.

Jean