Better mechanism to choose the default editor (and avoid vi if possible)?

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

Tony Mechelynck <antoine.mechelynck at gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 2:57 AM Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab at web.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Uwe Brauer <oub at mat.ucm.es> writes:
>>
>> >>>> "MK" == Marcin Kasperski <Marcin.Kasperski at mekk.waw.pl> writes:
>> >
>> >    >> If Mercurial would work harder to find some editor, this could be
>> >    >> reduced to the tiny fraction of people who have neither nano, nor vi,
>> >    >> nor emacs, no notepad, nor … installed.
>> >
>> >
>> >    > 2. $EDITOR=emacs
>> >
>> >    >    Well, I love emacs but with my convoluted config it starts 20s
>> >    >    on my laptop.
>> >
>> > Yep for me too.
>>
>> I typically use either emacs -Q or nano.
>>
>> Both are fast.
>>
>> But anyway: this is no counter-argument: It just gives some hint on the
>> right ordering.
>
> I'm not sure there is a rght ordering, unless you assume that if
> neither ui.editor nor $EDITOR is set, then we probably are in front of
> a very green beginner, who needs something extremely simple like kedit
> or Notepad. You prefer Emacs, I prefer Vim, but let's not reheat the
> Great Editor War: I think both are out for the greenest of newbies and
> that's that.

Ah, sorry, I wasn’t clear. I did not want to say that emacs is the right
choice as universal fallback. I should have moved that part further up:

    nano vi emacs gedit notepad _ 

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken