Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!att!cbnewsk!noraa
From: noraa@cbnewsk.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: Re: :wq (Re: One user's editor wish list)
Message-ID: <1991Apr1.094106.26188@cbnewsk.att.com>
Date: 1 Apr 91 09:41:06 GMT
References: <1991Mar25.191821.11019@scrumpy@.bnr.ca> <2900@wn1.sci.kun.nl> <1991Mar29.160622.5445@informix.com>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 42

In article <1991Mar29.160622.5445@informix.com> dberg@informix.com (David I. Berg) writes:
>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.

The same thing happened to me in 1987 - the last I used ZZ also.  I tell
everyone to use :wq or :w or :q or :next or :rewind etc. - tell vi
exactly what you want to do.

No ZZ for me, thank you.  Yes :wq is three keystrokes, and ZZ might be
faster, but I actually think about the :wq when I type it.  I often edit
10 files or more at a time, so I don't want to write and quit, I just
want to write and move to the next file.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM