Whats the reason vim has the function t
which does the same as f, only moving to the character
before? It seems useless to me; you can use f insted
of t always, or...?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/button-%22t%22-useless--tf3643549.html#a10175443
Sent from the Vim - Gene
On Wednesday 25 April 2007 09:01:49 alebo wrote:
> Whats the reason vim has the function t
> which does the same as f, only moving to the character
> before? It seems useless to me; you can use f insted
> of t always, or...?
If you want to change or delete text to a certain character it would be
technically and logically you are correct, however the human has an
objective mind and required f AND t, also don't forget F AND T to move
backwards.
this in the case where a space may occur or not occur before a ( or
other punctuation. you know the punctuation but without t/T you have to
car
I've come to use t more often than f.
One example is when I want to change some string "like thiss".
Placing the cursor on l and ct" is more confortable than c2e, and cfs
won't work as expected. Since vim7, there are lots of new
text-objects, so I'm probably using t less every day.
Regards,
On
alebo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> Whats the reason vim has the function t
> which does the same as f, only moving to the character
> before? It seems useless to me; you can use f insted
> of t always, or...?
Alebo,
If you just use f & t to move then I agree, however i
On 4/25/07, alebo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Whats the reason vim has the function t
which does the same as f, only moving to the character
before? It seems useless to me; you can use f insted
of t always, or...?
I was using t (specifically ct") for years before I discovered f and
still tend to
zzapper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> alebo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
>>
> In fact VIM has many features that appear redundant but then one day
> (perhaps after many years) you realise their utility.
>
In fact I've found that there is us
On 25/04/07, Erlend Hamberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 25 April 2007 09:01:49 alebo wrote:
> Whats the reason vim has the function t
> which does the same as f, only moving to the character
> before? It seems useless to me; you can use f insted
> of t always, or...?
If you want to c
When the cursor is in the middle of a word you wish to delete
diw has a distinct advantage over bdw
But what is it?
I think it's the mental model.
"diw" is two mental steps: {action}{object} where {action} is
"d"elete and {object} is "iw" even though that {object} is two
characters.
"bdw
ter to type :)
Salman.
> -Original Message-
> From: Tim Chase [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:48 AM
> To: zzapper
> Cc: vim@vim.org
> Subject: Re: button "t" useless?
>
> > When the cursor is in the middle of a word you wish to
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, zzapper wrote:
In fact I've found that there is usually (always?) a subtle advantage in
using one or other of a command which apparently does the same thing, and
that in different circumstances one or the other will be superior.
eg
When the cursor is in the middle of a wor
Arun Easi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:Pine.GHP.4.64.0704260850470.4589
@mammoth.cup.hp.com:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, zzapper wrote:
>
>> In fact I've found that there is usually (always?) a subtle advantage in
>> using one or other of a command which apparently does the same thing, and
>> tha
Hi,
On 4/26/07, zzapper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
zzapper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> alebo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
>>
> In fact VIM has many features that appear redundant but then one day
> (perhaps after many years) you realise the
On 4/26/07, Yegappan Lakshmanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
On 4/26/07, zzapper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> zzapper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> > alebo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> >
> >>
> > In fact VIM has many features that appe
Halim, Salman wrote:
This might not be a huge deal, but "bdw" is typed entirely with the left
hand if you're on a QWERTY keyboard (most people with English/US
keyboards) while "diw" switches hands. Unless you're pecking at the
keys with one hand, "diw" is simply much faster to type :)
Salman.
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:06:01 -0700 (PDT), Arun Easi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> In mapping. bdw cannot be used generically to delete the word under
> cursor. Single letter objects is one case. Other one is when the cursor is
> at the start of the word (I know you are talking when cursor is in t
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Matthew Winn wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:06:01 -0700 (PDT), Arun Easi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
In mapping. bdw cannot be used generically to delete the word under
cursor. Single letter objects is one case. Other one is when the cursor is
at the start of the word (I kno
Matthew Winn wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:06:01 -0700 (PDT), Arun Easi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
In mapping. bdw cannot be used generically to delete the word under
cursor. Single letter objects is one case. Other one is when the cursor is
at the start of the word (I know you are talking whe
> I'm a one-handed typist (right-handed), and to me both are
> about equally bad on ergonomical grounds. I don't think of
> what I do as "pecking" however: I know where the keys are on
> my AZERTY keyboard, and I use all five fingers of my right
> hand, which is not "riveted" to a constant loca
Halim, Salman wrote:
I'm a one-handed typist (right-handed), and to me both are
about equally bad on ergonomical grounds. I don't think of
what I do as "pecking" however: I know where the keys are on
my AZERTY keyboard, and I use all five fingers of my right
hand, which is not "riveted" to a c
On 4/26/07, A.J.Mechelynck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I go with the previous argument however: bdw has the inconvenient of including
a "prepare step":
bdw (move);(delete(word))
diw (delete((inner)word))
In my mental model, bdw is two steps, diw is one.
Not to mention that the repeat-
21 matches
Mail list logo
