Markus Heidelberg schrieb: > Bram Moolenaar, 08.03.2009: >> Markus Heidelberg wrote: >> >>> Bram Moolenaar, 06.03.2009: >>>> Markus Heidelberg wrote: >>>> >>>>> Lech Lorens, 05.03.2009: >>>>>> Perfectly fine with me - I hardly ever use :diffoff without !, anyway. >>>>> Is there a reason to not support the corresponding :diffthis! command? >>>>> For consistency it seems like a good idea, instead of using two >>>>> different ways ":windo diffthis" and ":diffoff!". Furthermore :windo can >>>>> move the cursor into another window, which is normally not desired. >>>>> >>>>> --- >8 --- >>>>> >>>>> Add support for :diffthis! for setting the diffmode in all windows in >>>>> the current tab page. >>>> Makes sense. But it should skip "special" windows: help, quickfix, >>>> preview, etc. >>> Sure, will do. >>> >>> What do you think, should the :diffthis! command set a special window >>> into diffmode, if it is the current window or should it never adjust >>> special windows? >>> I guess the former solution would be more consistent, since :diffthis >>> sets the current window into diffmode regardless of it being a special >>> window or not. >>> >> Yes, if you do :diffthis or :diffthis! then the current window should >> always go to diff mode. But ":diffthis!" should only include other >> windows that are "normal" to avoid trouble. >> >> It's perhaps a bit strange to use ":diffthis!" to start diff mode in >> other windows. > > That's for sure! > >> ":diffall" would be more obvious. It's not symmetric >> with ":diffoff" vs ":diffoff!", but that one doesn't say "this". >> >> What do you all think about using ":diffall" instead? > > Or what about :diffon[!] ? > :diffon would be a synonym for :diffthis then and there would be > symmetry with :diffoff[!] in terms of invocation and spelling. > Maybe this could be declared as the preferred method then. > > Indeed I already wondered, why it was called :diffthis instead of > :diffon, since there was a :diffoff. And then I read that :diffoff was > introduced a major version later than :diffthis. I guess if they were > introduced at the same time, it wouldn't have been called :diffthis. > > Markus
I'd prefer ":diffall" over ":diffon!": When there are three commands for diffing, it will be clearer what ":diffall" means. Later ":diffall!" can be added to really include all windows in the diff. ":diffon!" and ":diffoff!" wouldn't be exact opposites: if other windows are special, ":diffoff!" may include them, unlike ":diffon!". -- Andy --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
