> I wonder why some people use :wq instead of ZZ. Maybe they just don't know > about ZZ? Obviously that's not the case with Bram.
I can't speak for others, but for myself, I prefer the intentionality and tweakability of ":wq". While it may be two extra characters, I like that my mind goes through the process (brief though it may be) of "I want a command (:) that writes the file (w) and quits (q)". It allows me to adjust my intent on the fly...do I mean "and overwrite any pre-existing file" then I add a "!". If I really mean "do it for all the files", I can add an "a". So my mind goes through the process of the checklist: - do I want to write the file? (w) - do I want to quit the file? (q) - do I want to quit ALL the files? (a) - do I want to write/abandon any changes? (!) and build the command accordingly. That's 16 different available options in some situations, whereas ZZ and ZQ only account for two of them. Oh, and for some reason, I find ZZ and ZQ awkward to type too...not killer, but just another small ding that prevents me from using them. And as another small plus for ":wq", it's easily recognizable for its "vim-ness" (which may be why it Bram's email used it). I've strangely thought it would be fun to have a console-black t-shirt with "vim" printed on the front ":wq!" printed on the back of it in TTY-green. ;) Now if only they allowed the "colon" character (and exclamation-point character) on license plates... ;) Just my perspective... -tim
