Hi Tony! On Fr, 22 Jan 2016, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Tony Mechelynck > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Christian Brabandt <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> Hi, > >> I think, there is an inconsistency with regard to the :tabnext and > >> :tabprev commands: > >> > >> > >> :tabn[ext] {count} > >> {count}<C-PageDown> > >> {count}gt Go to tab page {count}. The first tab page has number one. > >> > >> :tabp[revious] {count} > >> :tabN[ext] {count} > >> {count}<C-PageUp> > >> {count}gT Go {count} tab pages back. Wraps around from the first one > >> to the last one. > >> > >> Note, the first does go to the specified number, while the second goes > >> that many numbers back. > >> > >> Could we adjust this, so that perhaps :tabn +{count} always goes {count} > >> number forwards and :tab {count} moves to the specified tabnumber > >> and :tabprevious +{count} moves that many number backwards, while > >> :tabprevious {count} goes to the specified number? (and perhapse > >> -{count} goes into the opposite direction?) > >> > >> This is slightly backwards compatible, so perhaps there are other > >> opinions? I meant incompatible > > I don't know the history of how these commands came into being, but I > > can imagine that the "forward" case was done by analogy with Ctrl-W w > > (without a count: go to next window round-robin; with a count: go to > > window n, top-left is 1) and that in the "back" case, Bram wanted to > > avoid the synonymity that we have in the case of Ctrl-W W (without a > > count: go to previous window round-robin; with a count: go to window > > n, top-left is 1). > > > > I don't use tab pages, but I do use Ctrl-W w with a count to get to > > the nth window. I think that the change you propose would be more than > > "slightly" backwards-incompatible. The present situation is asymmetric > > in the case of tabs, symmetric in the case of windows; neither is > > really elegant, but I think both are usable. > > P.S. I can't remember a command taking a three-way signed count (with > + - or neither), or even just a signed count (with - or nothing). Is > it possible without a major overhaul of the Vim code? :h :tabmove (and I thought I saw it somewhere else). Best, Christian -- Bescheidenheit ist eine Eigenschaft, für die der Mensch bewundert wird, falls die Leute je von ihm hören sollten. -- Edgar Watson Howe -- -- 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.
