Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!ucbvax!hplabs!pyramid!infmx!dberg
From: dberg@informix.com (David I. Berg)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: Re: :wq (Re: One user's editor wish list)
Message-ID: <1991Mar29.160622.5445@informix.com>
Date: 29 Mar 91 16:06:22 GMT
References: <1991Feb22.134323.20410@scrumpy@.bnr.ca> <1991Mar25.191821.11019@scrumpy@.bnr.ca> <2900@wn1.sci.kun.nl>
Sender: news@informix.com (Usenet News)
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.
Lines: 29

In article <2900@wn1.sci.kun.nl> hansm@cs.kun.nl (Hans Mulder) writes:
>In article <1991Mar25.191821.11019@scrumpy@.bnr.ca> bnrmtl!lewis@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu (Pierre Lewis) writes:

>>1) vi commands :w :q and :n
>>........
>
>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]
>- it gives you a second chance if the write failed
>- it's shorter :-)
>- ZZ is mapped to :x.

Let me tell you about ZZ. Once upon a time a system crashed during a
long and arduous edit session. When the system came back up, I
successfully recovered my file with vi -r, but had other things to
do just then, so I autumatically entered ZZ and went on with my business.
Because ZZ had become such an autonomous keystroke, it never occurred
to me that because I had not modified the buffer during the vi -r
session the file would't be saved. Later, when I went back to edit my 
file, guess whose prior arduous changes were conspicuous by their absence. 
I have never used ZZ since, will never use it in the future, and thank vi 
for :wq.
  ___                   ___              dberg@cougar.informix.com
  /  ) __      . __/    /_ ) _       __  Informix Software Inc.  (303) 850-0210
_/__/ (_(_ (/ / (_(_  _/__> (-' -/~ (_-  5299 DTC Blvd #740; Englewood CO 80111
{uunet|pyramid}!infmx!dberg        The opinions expressed herein are mine alone.