Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!oliveb!amdahl!rtech!ingres!rca
From: rca@ingres.com (Bob Arnold)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: Re: :wq (Re: One user's editor wish list)
Message-ID: <1991Apr2.093150.23748@ingres.Ingres.COM>
Date: 2 Apr 91 09:31:49 GMT
References: <1991Feb22.134323.20410@scrumpy@.bnr.ca> <1991Mar25.191821.11019@scrumpy@.bnr.ca> <2900@wn1.sci.kun.nl> <1991Mar29.160622.5445@informix.com>
Reply-To: rca@Ingres.COM (Bob Arnold)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Lines: 18

In article <2900@wn1.sci.kun.nl> hansm@cs.kun.nl (Hans Mulder) writes:
>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.

As someone who's taught vi to a number of novice users, I'd say that
:w and :q (and :wq) are much clearer about what's going on.

--
  __   _    _   Bob Arnold		ASK / Ingres Product Division
|/  \ / \  / \| 			1080 Marina Village Parkway
|    /    /   |				Alameda, CA, 94501
|    \__/ \__/| rca@ingres.com		415/748-2819