In such an editor, you would mostly see English and little if any code. Note that some of the English you see may even be written by the AI.
It would be similar to WYSIWYG editors, where you can occasionally reveal the underlying formatting codes when needed, but most of the time, you wouldn’t see them.
a) what language(s) the editor is written in -- compiled (view source code or compiled code) vs. interpreted (view script(s) source code)
b) support for utf8/utf16/utf32.
c) shell command line based (sed/ed) vs. interpreted text editor program[4] vs. text application[2]
----
no, text editor would not hide anything from the user[1] (unlike wysiwig[2])
few ways to interpret what's being asked:
text editor using treesitter extentions with approrpiate programming lanauge knowlege does allow for 'rolling up/down code blocks' to reduce/expand displayed code per lanauge groupings to reduce screen clutter. An ai can be used 'autobuild'/associate macros/tags references. where ai would translate/redirect 'verbal/audio' english commands to relevant text editor macros. This would be more akin to the human version of computer programing language hiding the binary/compiled stuff, where AI is just replacing OS & cli.
Example reference: text editor combined with additional application to show/display live html as it is edited/updated (vs. having all of the aforementioned available in an ide / word processor).[1]
one can use ai to do a transform audio/spoken commands into text that is then interpreted by an ai[3] vs. more traditional use gui object related to 'code' puredyne, swiftlatex, sun news
[1] https://github.com/wolandark/vim-live-server
[2] : https://github.com/SwiftLaTeX/SwiftLaTeX?tab=readme-ov-file
[3] : text2live : https://text2live.github.io/