Re: xemacs and c-basic-offset

[Daniel Pittman <daniel@rimspace.net>]

Simeon Nifos <archwndas@googlemail.com> writes:

> Dear emacs users, (setq-default c-basic-offset 2) in my .emacs file works as
> expected. I am satisfied.
>
> However, the same command in .xemacs/init.el or .xemacs/custom.el does not
> do what it does in .emacs. Infact, it does nothing. If I open a c++ file
> with xemacs and then press:
>
> META-x (enter) ,
> set-variable (enter),
> c-basic-offset (enter)
> 2 (enter)
>
> then this works only for the current buffer. If I open a new file in
> the same  buffer it doesn't work for the new file and I need to repeat
> the process. Is there anyway to make this work as nicely as it works
> in emacs?

You perhaps want to use `customize-variable', which should do the right thing
about getting the setting, um, set.  It prompts for the variable.  You might
also find more comfort in M-x customize-group c RET

This probably isn't the best place to seek XEmacs specific advice, though, and
an XEmacs group is more likely to have qualified people to assist you.

> You see, the only reason I am using xemacs is because it supports TABS which
> emacs doesn't support, as far as I know.

I am not certain what about TABS you are missing, but the Emacs info manual,
accessible with C-h r, seems to cover this:

   C-h F tab-to-tab-stop RET

Then, read that node, or visit the "Tab Stops" section below which talks about
how Emacs implements arbitrary tab stops in buffers.


> By the way, I love emacs but I am really frustrated by the fact that the
> learning curve is so bad ... (exponential in time).

Did you run through the tutorial, accessible with C-h t?  Did that help, or
are your problems after you got to that point?

Do you know about customize, the easy way to configure Emacs?

> Isn't there any manual-tutorial, how to set up the essential features a
> normal guy needs by his editor...

Generally speaking, Emacs offers those features out of the box.  The problem
is that the common ground between what you, I, and every other "normal
person"[1] needs is pretty small.

For example: I have not touched a c-mode setting in years, because I do next
to no C level development any longer.  I have, however, invested substantial
effort into configuring Perl mode, which many people will not care about a
whit.


> I mean features provided by default in several IDE environments for c++ at
> least ...

Mmmm.  You may be stuck with the fact that Emacs, out of the box, doesn't do a
lot of the things that these other environments do by default.  On the other
hand, Emacs doesn't *restrict* you to those things, either, which I prefer.

That said, Emacs is not the be-all and end-all of editors[2], so if you find
it easier to edit C++ in one of those IDEs you may just want to stick with
that.

I won't deny that Emacs has ...

> I have lost days and days to set up some subset of the features I need
> googling all over the web and by trial and error ...

... quite a learning curve, and can be difficult to follow.  I think the
effort is rewarded, but you may not.  Don't be afraid to say "this tool isn't
for me" — I did, regarding vi derivatives, because they don't work the way /I/
like to work, not because either I, or the tool, is defective.

Regards,
        Daniel

Footnotes: 
[1]  Since, y'know, plenty of women use Emacs as well, so you shouldn't
     exclude them from consideration.

[2]  Well, I think it is, but opinions clearly vary as people seem to keep
     using all those other editors as well, and liking them. :)

-- 
✣ Daniel Pittman            ✉ daniel@rimspace.net            ☎ +61 401 155 707
               ♽ made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons
   Looking for work?  Love Perl?  In Melbourne, Australia?  We are hiring.