From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Apr 20 10: 8: 4 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from theory1.physics.iisc.ernet.in (theory1.physics.iisc.ernet.in [144.16.71.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4D20237B9B5 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:07:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rsidd@theory1.physics.iisc.ernet.in) Received: (qmail 7790 invoked by uid 211); 20 Apr 2000 16:22:58 -0000 Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 21:52:58 +0530 From: Rahul Siddharthan To: Matthew Fuller Cc: David Scheidt , Alexander Langer , Christian Weisgerber , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ViM vs. Emacs Message-ID: <20000420215257.B7696@physics.iisc.ernet.in> References: <20000420175141.B5893@physics.iisc.ernet.in> <20000420211628.A7696@physics.iisc.ernet.in> <20000420105231.J43688@linkfast.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000420105231.J43688@linkfast.net>; from fullermd@linkfast.net on Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 10:52:31AM -0500 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 3.4-STABLE i386 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Matthew Fuller said on Apr 20, 2000 at 10:52:31: > On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 09:16:28PM +0530, a little birdie told me > that Rahul Siddharthan remarked > > > > Suppose you want to go back only part of the way? You did some > > complicated stuff which you want to keep, then you did some other > > complicated stuff which you want to undo. With vim you just need to > > keep pressing "u" till you're satisfied. With nvi you may not be able > > to do it. > > > > Being used to the vim keybindings, I initially thought nvi didn't have > > multiple undo. Then I found it did, and started using it, but then I > > got into the above situation a few times and didn't like it, so it's > > "alias vi vim" now. Actually I was wrong there -- or rather, the same thing can happen with vim. I think what I did was undo a change, then wanted to redo it but changed the document in some way (because I pressed the wrong keys), then I couldn't redo the change which I wanted to. It doesn't happen to me with vim, but that's just because I'm used to it. > The way it is makes sense to me. > u undo's your last change. Then you keep hitting '.' to keep undoing > back as far as you want. > Hitting 'u' again instead of '.' lets you undo the undo's, which is FAR > more valuable then continuing to undo. Why is it more valuable? Both look equally valuable to me. And to me having separate keys/commands for undo and redo seems *much* more intuitive and much more standard compared with other commonly used software. If the argument is tradition, traditional vi didn't have multiple undo anyway (which is a pain on many proprietary Unix systems). To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message