Hmmm... now I see it: I have to turn off HTML without which vim.org rejects it anyway. Okay, well next time I'll repent (maxima mea culpa).
> -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: :wq vs ZZ > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Tue, February 13, 2007 4:04 pm > To: Gene Kwiecinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Theerasak Photha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Vim ML <[email protected]> > > To boot, ZZ isn't Vim. I started using vi in 1983 and it was already > there. In fact, I have never used :wq (Sorry guys, my web-based > editor, which I must use at work becauseof IT paranoia about SMTP, simply > will not let me reply at the end rather than beginning of the thread.) > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: :wq vs ZZ > From: "Gene Kwiecinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, February 13, 2007 2:57 pm > To: "Theerasak Photha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Vim ML" <[email protected]> > > >I imagine there is a rationale for 'ZZ', but it's not readily > >apparent. (Something to do with C-z in DOS, or the end of the > >alphabet?) > > 'z' is already used, and the <shift> and <z> keys are adjacent on > Murrrcan keyboards, so you can easily just quit out of the editor in > almost a single hand-action. > > I never liked ":wq", because you gotta do > > depress <shift> > <:> > release <shift> > <w> > <q> > <enter> > > instead of the nice, simple, easy bang-bang of > > depress <shift> > <Z><Z> > > and you're out. Releasing the <shift> key doesn't even count. :D > > Even ':' requires either 2 hands, or a weirdly-contorted 1-handed op.
