> * Tim Vanderhoek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [990912 17:50]:
> >On Sun, Sep 12, 1999 at 03:20:02PM +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote:
> >>
> >> On this CURRENT of 3-4 weeks old I can do /blah and then use / to find
> >> the next occurance of blah in the same file.
> >>
> >> With the `new' more this behaviour has been barfed.
> >
> >Accidentally. I didn't notice that particular (mis?)-feature when
> >reading the older code. I'll re-add it. You can, of course, also use
> >"n" in the meantime.
>
> *nod*
>
> That's ok. I was merely curious as to the why. I am used to using it,
> but I can easily adopt myself to using `n'.
The rest of us aren't so willing to ``adopt `n'''. Please fix it.
> Just wonder who else wants this behaviour to stay away and come back.
> It's not like I am emotionally attached to it =)
Old die hards are though!
>
> >Of course, one really wonders why we need "/\n" to be a synonym for
> >"n", but I hadn't meant to change this behaviour.
Because it's been that way for as long as I can remeber, and that is
a long long time. vi does this too, as does ex.
Is what I really wonder is ``why do we need ``n''. Oh... was it added for the
folks who couldn't handle the fact that a command with no argument
is the same as the command with the last argument to that command :-).
You'll also note that there is no opposite to ``n'', but / and ? are
symetrical operations using the same ``last argument''. n keeps the
direction of the last search, I suppose that might be handy just in
case you forgot what way it was you where going... :-).
The man page fails to clearly describe the behavior with respect to the
null last pattern on / and ? :-(.
> That's ok =)
Not with me, and I am sure Warner and a few other die hard ``more'' users
are going to be chimming in here as soon as they get to this...
--
Rod Grimes - KD7CAX - (RWG25) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
