On 12/06/09 17:37, Charles Campbell wrote: > > Ben Fritz wrote: >> >> On Jun 12, 1:45 am, "[email protected]" >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Christian used :command in his examples, not :cabbr, so I think this >>> will not be a problem. >>> >>> >> >> Yes, in the simple case of doing the right thing for an >> accidental :Wq, :W, or :E, a command actually has advantages over an >> abbreviation. But you can't correct mistakes such as :wq! >> @, :wq1, :qa~, etc. using a :command. >> >> I didn't claim my method was better, I just wanted to demonstrate a >> second option (with its own advantages and disadvantages). >> > Yep -- Bram's got to start working on the VimMindReader -- so that vim > will do what I want, not what I type! :) > > Regards, > Chip Campbell
;-) Well, I for one won't use it, even if it's ever published: I want the program to do what I type (even if stupid), not what it thinks I wanted (which would prolly be wide off the mark). I already got a mother who thinks that "she knows better than I what is good for me". Best regards, Tony. -- Really heard in court in the U.S.A.: Q.: All your answers must be oral, all right? Which school did you attend? A.: Oral. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
