On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:23:53 +0100, "Markus Heidelberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > Am Thursday, 21. February 2008 schrieb Nick Gravgaard: > > I know it seems a bit strange, but in order that that both 2d- and 2dd > > work, shouldn't it look like this instead? > > > > -3 aaaa > > -2 bbbb <-- 2d- deletes from the current line to here > > -1 cccc > > 1 dddd <-- current line > > 2 eeee <-- 2dd deletes from the current line to here > > 3 ffff > > 4 gggg > > That's weird. Having zero as base has the advantage, that you can use the > commands in both directions - up and down - the same way. Then use 2dj > instead > of 3dd and 2dk works similar in the opposite direction. > Of course then the number doesn't represent the number of lines you want > to > delete. But that's not what you want, you just want to have the lines > from 0 > to the relative line number be deleted. As with movement commands 2j 2k > 2+ 2-.
Ah yes, I hadn't thought of the movement commands. I guess I'll have to get in the habit of adding 1 to the relative line number, or campaign to have a setting to make the dd, yy and >> style commands count from zero ;) > And you cannot compare 2d- with 2dd, you have to compare it with 2d+. Sure, but 2dd is quicker to type than 2d+, and I'm not sure how many people really use 2d-. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
