On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Christian Brabandt <
cbl...@256bit.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> I think, there is an inconsistency with regard to the :tabnext and
> :tabprev commands:
>
>
> :tabn[ext] {count}
> {count}<C-PageDown>
> {count}gt Go to tab page {count}. The first tab page has number one.
>
> :tabp[revious] {count}
> :tabN[ext] {count}
> {count}<C-PageUp>
> {count}gT Go {count} tab pages back. Wraps around from the first one
> to the last one.
>
> Note, the first does go to the specified number, while the second goes
> that many numbers back.
>
> Could we adjust this, so that perhaps :tabn +{count} always goes {count}
> number forwards and :tab {count} moves to the specified tabnumber
> and :tabprevious +{count} moves that many number backwards, while
> :tabprevious {count} goes to the specified number? (and perhapse
> -{count} goes into the opposite direction?)
>
> This is slightly backwards compatible, so perhaps there are other
> opinions?
>
> Best,
> Christian
I don't know the history of how these commands came into being, but I
can imagine that the "forward" case was done by analogy with Ctrl-W w
(without a count: go to next window round-robin; with a count: go to
window n, top-left is 1) and that in the "back" case, Bram wanted to
avoid the synonymity that we have in the case of Ctrl-W W (without a
count: go to previous window round-robin; with a count: go to window
n, top-left is 1).
I don't use tab pages, but I do use Ctrl-W w with a count to get to
the nth window. I think that the change you propose would be more than
"slightly" backwards-incompatible. The present situation is asymmetric
in the case of tabs, symmetric in the case of windows; neither is
really elegant, but I think both are usable.
Best regards,
Tony.