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 [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
