Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tellab5!vpnet!dattier
From: dattier@vpnet.chi.il.us (David W. Tamkin)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: Re: :wq (Re: One user's editor wish list)
Message-ID: <1991Mar28.155305.8204@vpnet.chi.il.us>
Date: 28 Mar 91 15:53:05 GMT
References: <1991Feb22.134323.20410@scrumpy@.bnr.ca> <1991Mar25.191821.11019@scrumpy@.bnr.ca> <2900@wn1.sci.kun.nl>
Organization: VPNet Public Access Unix, Villa Park IL  60181-2206
Lines: 29

hansm@cs.kun.nl (Hans Mulder) wrote in <2900@wn1.sci.kun.nl>:

| The :wq command was a mistake and should be expelled from vi ASAP.

| For one thing, it invites the mistake Pierre described above.
| Plus, the :x command is superior:
| - it skips the write if the buffer was not [Modified]

That alone would be reason to use :wq, except that in the versions of vi I've
used, :wq also skips the write if the [Modified] flag is off; I have to use
:w and then :q to get around it.  Even setting autowrite and writeany doesn't
help.  If only vi didn't clear the [Modified] flag when you write to an
outside file; that's the real problem.

| - it gives you a second chance if the write failed

It does?  I didn't know that.  The only time a write ever failed on me the
whole system locked up and I lost all my changes anyway, and I wasn't trying
to quit vi, just to :w to save the changes so far.

| - ZZ is mapped to :x.

That ZZ is mapped to :x doesn't make :x superior; it means only that someone
else before Hans felt that :x was superior to :wq.

David Tamkin  PO Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  dattier@vpnet.chi.il.us
GEnie:D.W.TAMKIN  CIS:73720,1570  MCIMail:426-1818  708 518 6769  312 693 0591

"Parker Lewis Can't Lose" mailing list:   write flamingo-request@ddsw1.mcs.com