53730Re: [PATCH] support for the bang in :diffthis (was Re: [PATCH] :diffoff should not change settings for non-diff windows)
- Mar 8 10:32 AMMarkus Heidelberg schrieb:
> Bram Moolenaar, 08.03.2009:I'd prefer ":diffall" over ":diffon!":
>> Markus Heidelberg wrote:
>>> Bram Moolenaar, 06.03.2009:
>>>> Markus Heidelberg wrote:
>>>>> Lech Lorens, 05.03.2009:
>>>>>> Perfectly fine with me - I hardly ever use :diffoff without !, anyway.
>>>>> Is there a reason to not support the corresponding :diffthis! command?
>>>>> For consistency it seems like a good idea, instead of using two
>>>>> different ways ":windo diffthis" and ":diffoff!". Furthermore :windo can
>>>>> move the cursor into another window, which is normally not desired.
>>>>> --- >8 ---
>>>>> Add support for :diffthis! for setting the diffmode in all windows in
>>>>> the current tab page.
>>>> Makes sense. But it should skip "special" windows: help, quickfix,
>>>> preview, etc.
>>> Sure, will do.
>>> What do you think, should the :diffthis! command set a special window
>>> into diffmode, if it is the current window or should it never adjust
>>> special windows?
>>> I guess the former solution would be more consistent, since :diffthis
>>> sets the current window into diffmode regardless of it being a special
>>> window or not.
>> Yes, if you do :diffthis or :diffthis! then the current window should
>> always go to diff mode. But ":diffthis!" should only include other
>> windows that are "normal" to avoid trouble.
>> It's perhaps a bit strange to use ":diffthis!" to start diff mode in
>> other windows.
> That's for sure!
>> ":diffall" would be more obvious. It's not symmetric
>> with ":diffoff" vs ":diffoff!", but that one doesn't say "this".
>> What do you all think about using ":diffall" instead?
> Or what about :diffon[!] ?
> :diffon would be a synonym for :diffthis then and there would be
> symmetry with :diffoff[!] in terms of invocation and spelling.
> Maybe this could be declared as the preferred method then.
> Indeed I already wondered, why it was called :diffthis instead of
> :diffon, since there was a :diffoff. And then I read that :diffoff was
> introduced a major version later than :diffthis. I guess if they were
> introduced at the same time, it wouldn't have been called :diffthis.
When there are three commands for diffing, it will be clearer what
Later ":diffall!" can be added to really include all windows in the
":diffon!" and ":diffoff!" wouldn't be exact opposites: if other windows
are special, ":diffoff!" may include them, unlike ":diffon!".
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>