My third point is not valid :-|
:enew has already its own paragraph.
My suggestion is to enrich :split with the information about [+cmd] and to
link :new {file} and :split {file} to :split.
Best regards,
Vivian.
On Sunday, October 26, 2025 at 6:32:48 PM UTC+1 Vivian De Smedt wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm a bit confused by the following sections of the Vim help:
>
> - :split
> - :split_f
>
>
> :[N]sp[lit] [++opt] [+cmd] [file] *:sp* *:split*
> Split current window in two. The result is two viewports on
> the same file.
>
> Make the new window N high (default is to use half the height
> of the current window). Reduces the current window height to
> create room (and others, if the 'equalalways' option is set,
> 'eadirection' isn't "hor", and one of them is higher than the
> current or the new window).
>
> If [file] is given it will be edited in the new window. If it
> is not loaded in any buffer, it will be read. Else the new
> window will use the already loaded buffer.
>
> Note: CTRL-S does not work on all terminals and might block
> further input, use CTRL-Q to get going again.
> Also see |++opt| and |+cmd|.
> *E242* *E1159*
> Be careful when splitting a window in an autocommand, it may
> mess up the window layout if this happens while making other
> window layout changes.
>
> vs.
>
> :[N]new [++opt] [+cmd] {file}
> :[N]sp[lit] [++opt] [+cmd] {file} *:split_f*
> Create a new window and start editing file {file} in it. This
> behaves almost like a ":split" first, and then an ":edit"
> command, but the alternate file name in the original window is
> set to {file}.
> If [+cmd] is given, execute the command when the file has been
> loaded |+cmd|.
> Also see |++opt|.
> Make new window N high (default is to use half the existing
> height). Reduces the current window height to create room
> (and others, if the 'equalalways' option is set).
>
> Here are my doubts:
> - The signature of the :split command is the same for both paragraph. I
> imagine that the corresponding text could be the same
> - The second version only add the paragraph about the [+cmd] argument that
> could/should be integrated in the first
> - In the second the signature of the :new command is introduced suggesting
> that both command are synonymous but they are not and maybe :new deserve
> its own paragraph
>
> Do you share my confusion?
> Should I suggest a change?
>
> Best regards,
> Vivian.
>
--
--
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].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vim_dev/e61dc612-68b4-4bb2-9aac-bbba50af4e9fn%40googlegroups.com.
