Hello Kiichi, 2015/3/11(Wed) 18:28:28 UTC+9 Ozaki Kiichi: > > * ":.bnext" == go next buffer, > > * ":+bnext" == go 2nd next buffer, same as ":.+1bnext". > > * ":.wincmd r" == go next window > > * ":+wincmd r" == go 2nd next window, same as ":.+1wincmd r" > > > > Thus it can be said that present ":[.-+]tabmove" behaviors have > > consistency, at least, as long as other moving operations. > > I reconsidered above, it were not appropriate as analogic command of > "tabmove". > I'm sorry, but I withdraw it.
Don't mind. Probably, Count of ':tabmove' behavior is similar to ':wincmd x'. Thanks for pointing this. Best regards, Hirohito Higashi (a.k.a h_east) -- -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
