Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 10:41:09 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> To: asmodai@wxs.nl (Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai) Cc: vanderh@ecf.utoronto.ca (Tim Vanderhoek), current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: more Message-ID: <199909121741.KAA31185@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <19990912180827.A83446@daemon.ninth-circle.org> from Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai at "Sep 12, 1999 06:08:27 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> * Tim Vanderhoek (vanderh@ecf.utoronto.ca) [990912 17:50]: > >On Sun, Sep 12, 1999 at 03:20:02PM +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote: > >> > >> On this CURRENT of 3-4 weeks old I can do /blah and then use / to find > >> the next occurance of blah in the same file. > >> > >> With the `new' more this behaviour has been barfed. > > > >Accidentally. I didn't notice that particular (mis?)-feature when > >reading the older code. I'll re-add it. You can, of course, also use > >"n" in the meantime. > > *nod* > > That's ok. I was merely curious as to the why. I am used to using it, > but I can easily adopt myself to using `n'. The rest of us aren't so willing to ``adopt `n'''. Please fix it. > Just wonder who else wants this behaviour to stay away and come back. > It's not like I am emotionally attached to it =) Old die hards are though! > > >Of course, one really wonders why we need "/\n" to be a synonym for > >"n", but I hadn't meant to change this behaviour. Because it's been that way for as long as I can remeber, and that is a long long time. vi does this too, as does ex. Is what I really wonder is ``why do we need ``n''. Oh... was it added for the folks who couldn't handle the fact that a command with no argument is the same as the command with the last argument to that command :-). You'll also note that there is no opposite to ``n'', but / and ? are symetrical operations using the same ``last argument''. n keeps the direction of the last search, I suppose that might be handy just in case you forgot what way it was you where going... :-). The man page fails to clearly describe the behavior with respect to the null last pattern on / and ? :-(. > That's ok =) Not with me, and I am sure Warner and a few other die hard ``more'' users are going to be chimming in here as soon as they get to this... -- Rod Grimes - KD7CAX - (RWG25) rgrimes@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199909121741.KAA31185>