3 ms·
I've tried so many times to make it work, I've really tried. But it just ends up being faster to spam j a couple of times instead of having to think about how m
by eddd-ddde 8mo ago
I've tried so many times to make it work, I've really tried. But it just ends up being faster to spam j a couple of times instead of having to think about how many times I want to move, then type it, then be wrong, then try again...
For larger distances you wouldn't even see the text in the screen, so you don't even know how much to jump. In this situation I just spam ctrl+d, then tweak with j.
- estearum 8mo agoRelative line numbers = no thinking Look where you want to go, there's a number next to it. Type that number and then type j.
- opan 8mo agoYou can jump to line numbers without them being relative. Enter the line number and hit G or gg. Out of the box behavior, and you don't need to obscure the real line numbers that way.
- estearum 8mo agoRight, but obviously people in this comment thread are trying to use relative jumps (which I also have a strong preference for), but seem to be under the impression you must guess the distance: you do not. Typing 5j, where the number "5ish" was already loaded into your brain by looking at the distance, is 100x better than typing 384g, where 384 is an effectively meaningless number and will change momentarily anyway. Fwiw, relative line numbers doesn't obscure the "real line numbers" in any meaningful way. First of all, real line numbers aren't used for anything except external references into the file, which you can still navigate to perfectly fine using G or g. Also, relative line numbers show your current line's real line number at all times. There have been exactly zero times I've regretted having relative line numbers on and it's not default behavior, that's why it's useful to point out here.