Am Thursday, 21. February 2008 schrieb Nick Gravgaard: > > On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:23:53 +0100, "Markus Heidelberg" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > > Am Thursday, 21. February 2008 schrieb Nick Gravgaard: > > > I know it seems a bit strange, but in order that that both 2d- and 2dd > > > work, shouldn't it look like this instead? > > > > > > -3 aaaa > > > -2 bbbb <-- 2d- deletes from the current line to here > > > -1 cccc > > > 1 dddd <-- current line > > > 2 eeee <-- 2dd deletes from the current line to here > > > 3 ffff > > > 4 gggg > > > > That's weird. Having zero as base has the advantage, that you can use the > > commands in both directions - up and down - the same way. Then use 2dj > > instead > > of 3dd and 2dk works similar in the opposite direction. > > Of course then the number doesn't represent the number of lines you want > > to > > delete. But that's not what you want, you just want to have the lines > > from 0 > > to the relative line number be deleted. As with movement commands 2j 2k > > 2+ 2-. > > Ah yes, I hadn't thought of the movement commands. I guess I'll have to > get in the habit of adding 1 to the relative line number, or campaign to > have a setting to make the dd, yy and >> style commands count from zero > ;)
But how would you delete 2 lines upwards? 1k2dd? However, it will not be consistent with your downwards command, because there is no equivalent for 2dd in the other direction. > > And you cannot compare 2d- with 2dd, you have to compare it with 2d+. > > Sure, but 2dd is quicker to type than 2d+, and I'm not sure how many > people really use 2d-. I don't. I use 2dj and 2dk, not 2d+ and 2d-. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
