>Yeah, I agree, it's been years since I've had to stop and think about >how to exit vi/vim.
And as such, only ooooooone more little shortcut makes it that much easier. :D >learn. Even e(x)it has this advantage, although I never developed the >habit of using it because it seemed redundant, given :wq. But what does >ZZ abbreviate? Nothing. It's a quick'n'easy keystroke sequence which is hard to hit accidentally, yet is a simple bang-bang sequence to write/quit when done. Before tabs (and since, as I generally will pop up separate instances of 'vim' vs using tabs), I might have 4-5 separate windows open for the source file, error-log, makefile, output, etc., and when "cleaning up", it was *so* nice to just be able to keep my finger on the <shift> key and then just repeatedly hit 'Z' as many times as necessary to write/quit all the windows in sequence. Going ":wq<enter>:wq<enter>...:wq<enter>" until done just did *not* appeal to me. >Another one that took a long time for me to learn was ^] which doesn't >seem to have any obvious connection to the word "tag". I would have >used ^T instead, and then used Shift-^T or some other control sequence >to come back up the tag stack. But it is what it is. ^T was DC4, probably hooked by early OSes that also used DC1/DC3 for flow-control. And no, shifting a control-char has *zero* difference from the unshifted control-char. And 't' was already taken for normal movement. There are just so many letters in the alphabet, and of the uppercase ones, 'Z' was a prime candidate for all the above reasons. It may not "make sense" from a mnemonic point of view, but I'm *so* glad they used it. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
