3 ms·
Pretty nice review and I agree with most of your comments. I agree that it seems strange to teach Ctrl+^ for previous file. (Not symmetrical, and doesn't reall
by slurgfest 14y ago
Pretty nice review and I agree with most of your comments.
I agree that it seems strange to teach Ctrl+^ for previous file. (Not symmetrical, and doesn't really mean previous anyway.) However, particularly for the purpose of teaching newbies, I think :Next would be even more confusing... and I could be wrong about this, but I think the number of people who need to care about learning vi (as opposed to vim) is really small, if it even extends beyond communities of people who think that things created 20 years ago are newfangled.
- tomku 14y agoI agree about the vi vs. vim part, I just suggested :N since the book itself was (as far as I could tell) strictly staying vi-compatible. :Next going backwards compared to :next is a little confusing at first, but it actually fits the same pattern as some other commands that go in two directions (f and F, t and T, gg and G), if you think about the two commands as just :n and :N. Naturally, as you observed, it's probably better to use :prev if you're in a modern vi clone or vim. If you switch to vim as the baseline, there's a bunch of other easier ways to do things too, like using :sav (:saveas) instead of :w <filename> followed by :e <filename>.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- johncoltrane 14y agoI've been using Vim for almost 2 years, now, and I'm very happy with it. Somehow, I'd like to try vi but I have no idea of where I could find the source.