Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Relative line numbering and current line

Expand Messages
  • tooth pik
    ... exactly ... cool -- thx ... Bram is so busy right now I m afraid we re on our own. ... my bad -- I sort of hijacked another thread here where [I think it
    Message 1 of 14 , Jun 1, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 10:10:32PM -0400, Grant Farnsworth wrote:
      > > I've modified my copy of screen.c with the attitude "you can't fight
      > > city hall" -- the bad news here is even with the zero back the width
      > > of that field stays huge on a big file, even though it dosn't need to
      > > -- I probably need to dig some more and find where it gets the width
      > > -- dang I hate this

      > It sounds like your modifications are the removal of the if blocks
      > around lines 2239 and 3510.

      exactly

      > To fix the width we need to edit the number_width() function and
      > replace

      > lnum = wp->w_buffer->b_ml.ml_line_count;

      > with

      > if (wp->w_p_rnu && !wp->w_p_nu)
      > lnum = wp->w_height;
      > else
      > lnum = wp->w_buffer->b_ml.ml_line_count;

      > I believe that will revert vim to the previous, cleaner behavior.

      cool -- thx

      > I worry that asking for other things besides zero (as Bee is) will get
      > the whole idea tossed out.

      Bram is so busy right now I'm afraid we're on our own.

      > On the other hand the absolute number thing seems to have at least a
      > couple of fans on the dev list, so having a bunch of different
      > possibilities for what gets put where the zero belongs might be more
      > likely than getting it reverted.

      > It's hard to see relative number users not objecting to the current
      > behavior. When I opened screen.c to find this stuff, I counted the
      > columns being used. It was 6. That is a lot of wasted screen in an
      > 80 column terminal.

      > This is my first discussion on vim_use. Perhaps I should have brought
      > it up on the vim_dev list instead? I'm not sure it will get noticed
      > here.

      my bad -- I sort of hijacked another thread here where [I think it was
      Charles] mentioned the weirdness of the absolute number in the
      relative column and I jumped on that. You're quite right, this
      belongs in vim_dev, but I'm not sure enough people care about this
      issue that it'll get noticed anywhere.

      --
      _|_ _ __|_|_ ._ o|
      |_(_)(_)|_| ||_)||<
      |

      --
      --
      You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
      Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
      For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

      ---
      You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
      To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscribe@....
      For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
    • Ben Fritz
      ... I use relative numbering all the time. Before, I occasionally had to switch back and forth between that and absolute. Now, I almost never need to. I LIKE
      Message 2 of 14 , Jun 1, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        On Saturday, June 1, 2013 12:13:56 PM UTC-5, Grant wrote:
        > I've been distressed by the direction the discussion on the addition
        >
        > of the absolute line number to the relative line number functionality
        >
        > has gone. More specifically, I don't see enough champions of relative
        >
        > numbering fighting to keep it useful and economical and I'm afraid the
        >
        > discussion with die before fixing the current state of things.
        >
        > Perhaps the problem is that relative number users are too small a
        >
        > minority to fight for themselves. The addition of the current
        >
        > absolute line number to relative line numbering is a serious usability
        >
        > regression for relative numbering and I would hate for it to make it
        >
        > into 7.4 as it is.
        >

        I use relative numbering all the time. Before, I occasionally had to switch back and forth between that and absolute. Now, I almost never need to. I LIKE the absolute number. And I rarely notice either numbering at all, except for when I need it. I think "serious usability regression" is a huge overstatement.

        But, I personally support an option to control this. I like even better the idea of 'relativenumber' and 'number' combining together instead of being mutually exclusive. There have been a couple patches submitted for both of these methods.

        --
        --
        You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
        Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
        For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

        ---
        You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
        To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscribe@....
        For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
      • tooth pik
        ... I don t -- sorry Ben, but when I want relative numbers, I find the absolute at zero a distraction ... but Bram has been quoted as not wanting more options
        Message 3 of 14 , Jun 1, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 10:27:23PM -0700, Ben Fritz wrote:
          > On Saturday, June 1, 2013 12:13:56 PM UTC-5, Grant wrote:
          > > I've been distressed by the direction the discussion on the addition
          > > of the absolute line number to the relative line number functionality
          > > has gone. More specifically, I don't see enough champions of relative
          > > numbering fighting to keep it useful and economical and I'm afraid the
          > > discussion with die before fixing the current state of things.
          > > Perhaps the problem is that relative number users are too small a
          > > minority to fight for themselves. The addition of the current
          > > absolute line number to relative line numbering is a serious usability
          > > regression for relative numbering and I would hate for it to make it
          > > into 7.4 as it is.

          > I use relative numbering all the time. Before, I occasionally had to
          > switch back and forth between that and absolute. Now, I almost never
          > need to. I LIKE the absolute number. And I rarely notice either
          > numbering at all, except for when I need it. I think "serious
          > usability regression" is a huge overstatement.

          I don't -- sorry Ben, but when I want relative numbers, I find the
          absolute at zero a distraction

          > But, I personally support an option to control this. I like even
          > better the idea of 'relativenumber' and 'number' combining together
          > instead of being mutually exclusive. There have been a couple
          > patches submitted for both of these methods.

          but Bram has been quoted as not wanting more options in this area --
          it's a conundrum

          I think gvfarns will be moving this topic to vim_dev -- perhaps we can
          continue there...

          --
          _|_ _ __|_|_ ._ o|
          |_(_)(_)|_| ||_)||<
          |

          --
          --
          You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
          Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
          For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

          ---
          You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
          To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscribe@....
          For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
        • glts
          ... Agreed. Backwards compatibility seems to be one of the guiding principles in Vim development. But backwards compatibility is not only a strictly technical
          Message 4 of 14 , Jun 2, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            On Saturday, June 1, 2013 7:13:56 PM UTC+2, Grant wrote:
            > ... But I think
            > it is against the spirit of vim that we should remove useful
            > functionality (non-wasteful relative line number functionality) that
            > people depend on without at least giving them some backwards
            > compatibility.

            Agreed.

            Backwards compatibility seems to be one of the guiding principles in Vim
            development. But backwards compatibility is not only a strictly
            technical concept, it should include remaining backwards compatible with
            the reasonable expectations and practices of the users. In that sense,
            the absolute current line number is a decidedly backwards incompatible
            change.

            Anyway, people have made up their minds. Some think it's useful, some
            think it's distracting. For some people it adds value, for some people
            it subtracts value. Let's please make it customizable.

            --
            --
            You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
            Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
            For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

            ---
            You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
            To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscribe@....
            For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
          • glts
            ... Wait, the big advantage of that little scheme is that no new options are required. number and relativenumber work together to satisfy both the
            Message 5 of 14 , Jun 2, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              On Sunday, June 2, 2013 8:13:05 AM UTC+2, toothpik wrote:
              > On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 10:27:23PM -0700, Ben Fritz wrote:
              > > But, I personally support an option to control this. I like even
              > > better the idea of 'relativenumber' and 'number' combining together
              > > instead of being mutually exclusive. There have been a couple
              > > patches submitted for both of these methods.
              >
              > but Bram has been quoted as not wanting more options in this area --
              > it's a conundrum

              Wait, the big advantage of that little scheme is that no new options are
              required. 'number' and 'relativenumber' work together to satisfy both
              the absolutists and the relativists (of either kind) alike.

              https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vim_use/fjG8gaeqpRc/zZU4X8_yRGIJ

              The question is whether it is confusing. And I think it is a very valid
              question.

              --
              --
              You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
              Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
              For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

              ---
              You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
              To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscribe@....
              For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
            • Ben Fritz
              ... I think all it takes is a help note. In :help number replace the bit about resetting relativenumber with something like: If relativenumber is also
              Message 6 of 14 , Jun 2, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                On Sunday, June 2, 2013 3:43:06 AM UTC-5, glts wrote:
                > On Sunday, June 2, 2013 8:13:05 AM UTC+2, toothpik wrote:
                > > On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 10:27:23PM -0700, Ben Fritz wrote:
                > > > But, I personally support an option to control this. I like even
                > > > better the idea of 'relativenumber' and 'number' combining together
                > > > instead of being mutually exclusive. There have been a couple
                > > > patches submitted for both of these methods.
                > >
                > > but Bram has been quoted as not wanting more options in this area --
                > > it's a conundrum
                >
                > Wait, the big advantage of that little scheme is that no new options are
                > required. 'number' and 'relativenumber' work together to satisfy both
                > the absolutists and the relativists (of either kind) alike.
                >
                > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vim_use/fjG8gaeqpRc/zZU4X8_yRGIJ
                >
                > The question is whether it is confusing. And I think it is a very valid
                > question.

                I think all it takes is a help note. In :help 'number' replace the bit about resetting 'relativenumber' with something like:

                "If 'relativenumber' is also set, puts the line number only on the line with the cursor"

                And at :help 'relativenumber' replace the bit about resetting 'number' with something like:

                "If 'number' is also set, the line with the cursor contains the line number, otherwise zero."

                --
                --
                You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
                Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
                For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

                ---
                You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
                To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscribe@....
                For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
              • tooth pik
                ... +1 Ben! I didn t understand this approach til I saw this email! I like it too. -- _|_ _ __|_|_ ._ o| ... -- -- You received this message from the
                Message 7 of 14 , Jun 2, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 12:50:10PM -0700, Ben Fritz wrote:
                  > On Sunday, June 2, 2013 3:43:06 AM UTC-5, glts wrote:
                  > > On Sunday, June 2, 2013 8:13:05 AM UTC+2, toothpik wrote:
                  > > > On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 10:27:23PM -0700, Ben Fritz wrote:
                  > > > > But, I personally support an option to control this. I like even
                  > > > > better the idea of 'relativenumber' and 'number' combining together
                  > > > > instead of being mutually exclusive. There have been a couple
                  > > > > patches submitted for both of these methods.
                  > > >
                  > > > but Bram has been quoted as not wanting more options in this area --
                  > > > it's a conundrum
                  > >
                  > > Wait, the big advantage of that little scheme is that no new options are
                  > > required. 'number' and 'relativenumber' work together to satisfy both
                  > > the absolutists and the relativists (of either kind) alike.
                  > >
                  > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vim_use/fjG8gaeqpRc/zZU4X8_yRGIJ
                  > >
                  > > The question is whether it is confusing. And I think it is a very valid
                  > > question.

                  > I think all it takes is a help note. In :help 'number' replace the bit about resetting 'relativenumber' with something like:

                  > "If 'relativenumber' is also set, puts the line number only on the line with the cursor"

                  > And at :help 'relativenumber' replace the bit about resetting 'number' with something like:

                  > "If 'number' is also set, the line with the cursor contains the line number, otherwise zero."

                  +1 Ben! I didn't understand this approach til I saw this email! I
                  like it too.

                  --
                  _|_ _ __|_|_ ._ o|
                  |_(_)(_)|_| ||_)||<
                  |

                  --
                  --
                  You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
                  Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
                  For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

                  ---
                  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
                  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscribe@....
                  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                • Gary Johnson
                  ... I like this, too. Even though I don t use and don t even like relativenumber at the moment, I may change my mind. If I do, I d like to be able to try
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jun 2, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 2013-06-02, tooth pik wrote:
                    > On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 12:50:10PM -0700, Ben Fritz wrote:
                    > > On Sunday, June 2, 2013 3:43:06 AM UTC-5, glts wrote:

                    > > > Wait, the big advantage of that little scheme is that no new options are
                    > > > required. 'number' and 'relativenumber' work together to satisfy both
                    > > > the absolutists and the relativists (of either kind) alike.
                    > > >
                    > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vim_use/fjG8gaeqpRc/zZU4X8_yRGIJ
                    > > >
                    > > > The question is whether it is confusing. And I think it is a very valid
                    > > > question.
                    >
                    > > I think all it takes is a help note. In :help 'number' replace
                    > > the bit about resetting 'relativenumber' with something like:
                    >
                    > > "If 'relativenumber' is also set, puts the line number only on
                    > > the line with the cursor"
                    >
                    > > And at :help 'relativenumber' replace the bit about resetting
                    > > 'number' with something like:
                    >
                    > > "If 'number' is also set, the line with the cursor contains the
                    > > line number, otherwise zero."
                    >
                    > +1 Ben! I didn't understand this approach til I saw this email! I
                    > like it too.

                    I like this, too. Even though I don't use and don't even like
                    'relativenumber' at the moment, I may change my mind. If I do, I'd
                    like to be able to try both formats and choose the one I prefer.
                    This seems like a clean, straightforward solution.

                    Regards,
                    Gary

                    --
                    --
                    You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
                    Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
                    For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

                    ---
                    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
                    To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscribe@....
                    For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                  • Chris Lott
                    On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 2:43 PM, tooth pik wrote: ... I echo this sentiment: I really wasn t understanding the issue at all until this
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jun 2, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 2:43 PM, tooth pik <toothpik6@...> wrote:

                      Ben Fritz wrote:
                      >> I think all it takes is a help note. In :help 'number' replace the bit about resetting 'relativenumber' with something like:
                      >>
                      >> "If 'relativenumber' is also set, puts the line number only on the line with the cursor"
                      >>
                      >> And at :help 'relativenumber' replace the bit about resetting 'number' with something like:
                      >>
                      >> "If 'number' is also set, the line with the cursor contains the line number, otherwise zero."
                      >>
                      > +1 Ben! I didn't understand this approach til I saw this email! I
                      > like it too.

                      I echo this sentiment: I really wasn't understanding the issue at all
                      until this message. But now I not only understand, but it seems like a
                      preferable setup to me.

                      c
                      --
                      Chris Lott <chris@...>

                      --
                      --
                      You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
                      Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
                      For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

                      ---
                      You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
                      To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscribe@....
                      For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.