Re: vimsplit: merging files & wishes
- Zdenek Sekera wrote:
> vimsplit is very impressive, as others noted.I'm glad it's useful.
> Q: I am getting a blank column (well, colored) in col 1,That's probably the fold column. This makes it easier to open and close
> (in both vertical windows), is this the effect of folding?
> (Didn't use folding yet, no experience)
folds, by clicking on the "+" or "-" of the fold. For those people who can't
remember the "zc" and "zo" commands...
> A few wishes, perhaps:The reason is that when ":diffsplit" would do a vertical split by default, how
> - I find little odd that 'vimdiff f1 f2' defaults to vertical
> (which I like), but :diffsplit defaults to horizontal, (requires
> :vert diffsplit ..). I'd make it symetric (simple for simple)
would you tell it to do a horizontal split?
I find the vertical split more useful, since you can see the files
side-by-side. That's why it's the default for "vimdiff".
> - the filler lines are 'xxxxx'Using a blank line with some coloring would be preferred. Unfortunatly it's
> I find that distracting (maybe: too imposing), couldn't
> we have a possibility to choose the filler char?
> If we did, what I would choose would be just a blank line
> (all blanks) and hope this filler line can be colored
> to something to make clear it is a filler and not a legitimate
> blank line
not always clear what background color a user has set up. Especially in a
terminal. The color would then possibly be equal to the background color, and
the filler lines would go unnoticed. For the GUI the problem is that the user
may change the background color somewhere in his .vimrc or .gvimrc file, after
the default color for DiffDelete has been selected.
An alternative could be to use another character. But which? It should be
different from another character that's used for lines in the file. For
example, many C files contain "***" lines. "---" is also very common. I
thought "x" would hint at "x-ed out". "ddd" would be an alternative, but it's
not really better.
> - often, I have 2-3 files that are similar (code sources) andI'm working on this. ":diffget" would get a changed block from the other
> I need to make out of them a new file by merging some differences
> from some of them, usualy taking one as a base and adding/deleting
> from it).
> It would be very nice to have vim commands for doing it, something
> like 'take this line/ this diff region from this file and put it in
> a new file'. In vertical split arrangement I'd look at both windows,
> set a pointer to the line (region I want) in one window and say
> 'move this to the left (right) window (or a new file)'.
> The new file would be created by going top to bottom and saying
> for each common/diff part to go/not go to a new file.
> Or can that be done already and I just don't see it?
buffer and put it in the current one. ":diffput" does it the other way
around. A range can be specified, otherwise the diff at the current line is
This doesn't work with three buffers, because Vim doesn't know which other
buffer to use. Specifying the buffer number would be possible, but this
quickly gets complicated.
I could actually allow editing 4 buffers in diff mode, but would this be
Q: What is a patch 22?
A: A patch you need to include to make it possible to include patches.
/// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\
((( Creator of Vim - http://www.vim.org -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim )))
\\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///