Why is the underscore command _ useful?
I'm a bit puzzeled as to why the underscore command _, which jumps to
the beginning of the (COUNT - 1)th line below the cursor, gets its own
key. When would I use this rather than + or ^?
cursor-motions
asked 5 hours ago
ToothrotToothrot
1,489517
add a comment |
I'm a bit puzzeled as to why the underscore command _, which jumps to
the beginning of the (COUNT - 1)th line below the cursor, gets its own
key. When would I use this rather than + or ^?
cursor-motions
asked 5 hours ago
ToothrotToothrot
1,489517
add a comment |
I'm a bit puzzeled as to why the underscore command _, which jumps to
the beginning of the (COUNT - 1)th line below the cursor, gets its own
key. When would I use this rather than + or ^?
cursor-motions
asked 5 hours ago
ToothrotToothrot
1,489517
I'm a bit puzzeled as to why the underscore command _, which jumps to
the beginning of the (COUNT - 1)th line below the cursor, gets its own
key. When would I use this rather than + or ^?
cursor-motions
cursor-motions
asked 5 hours ago
ToothrotToothrot
1,489517
asked 5 hours ago
ToothrotToothrot
1,489517
edited 4 hours ago
Toothrot
asked 5 hours ago
ToothrotToothrot
1,489517
asked 5 hours ago
ToothrotToothrot
1,489517
asked 5 hours ago
ToothrotToothrot
1,489517
1,489517
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Good question!
As a motion by itself, you're right, _ is not a particularly useful key. :h _
*_*
_ <underscore> [count] - 1 lines downward, on the first non-blank
character |linewise|.
The key word here is "linewise". So if your goal is to just move the cursor, then ^, j, and + all get the job done, and there's not much point to _. But as an argument to an operator, _ is super powerful.
A lot of double-key shortcuts are actually just shortcuts for _. For example,
dd -> d_
cc -> c_
yy -> y_
Y -> y_
etc. Because it's a linewise motion, it basically selects the entire line to be operated on regardless of where your cursor starts, whereas ^ just goes from your character to the first non-blank.
It helps me when thinking about linewise vs blockwise motions to imagine that I'm pressing either v or V right before the motion. So I imagine d^ to be equivalent to v^d and I imagine d_ to be equivalent to V_d or V^d. Of course, you can also override a motion to force it to be linewise or characterwise. So dv_ is actually exactly the same as d^ or v^d, and dVw is like Vwd which is exactly like d_.
The reason it is specifically the "count-1th" line is so that 1dd (which is really d1_) deletes one entire line, 2dd (which is really d2_) deletes 2 entire lines, 3dd deletes 3 entire lines, etc.
answered 4 hours ago
DJMcMayhem♦DJMcMayhem
11.4k12862
All right, but would I ever actually use it?ddis easier thand_and3yjis easier than4y_.
– Toothrot
4 hours ago
@toothrot If you were creating your own operator and wanted to operate on the next n lines.
– DJMcMayhem♦
4 hours ago
@Toothrot I guess I want to clarify that a little bit. In day to day vim editing, no it's really not particularly useful. I've almost never used it either. The reason it's useful is because it is the definition of a lot of useful commands.ddmight be more convenient thand_, but that's becauseddis just a mapping tod_. And it's also useful in vimscript.
– DJMcMayhem♦
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "599"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fvi.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f19745%2fwhy-is-the-underscore-command-useful%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Good question!
As a motion by itself, you're right, _ is not a particularly useful key. :h _
*_*
_ <underscore> [count] - 1 lines downward, on the first non-blank
character |linewise|.
The key word here is "linewise". So if your goal is to just move the cursor, then ^, j, and + all get the job done, and there's not much point to _. But as an argument to an operator, _ is super powerful.
A lot of double-key shortcuts are actually just shortcuts for _. For example,
dd -> d_
cc -> c_
yy -> y_
Y -> y_
etc. Because it's a linewise motion, it basically selects the entire line to be operated on regardless of where your cursor starts, whereas ^ just goes from your character to the first non-blank.
It helps me when thinking about linewise vs blockwise motions to imagine that I'm pressing either v or V right before the motion. So I imagine d^ to be equivalent to v^d and I imagine d_ to be equivalent to V_d or V^d. Of course, you can also override a motion to force it to be linewise or characterwise. So dv_ is actually exactly the same as d^ or v^d, and dVw is like Vwd which is exactly like d_.
The reason it is specifically the "count-1th" line is so that 1dd (which is really d1_) deletes one entire line, 2dd (which is really d2_) deletes 2 entire lines, 3dd deletes 3 entire lines, etc.
answered 4 hours ago
DJMcMayhem♦DJMcMayhem
11.4k12862
All right, but would I ever actually use it?ddis easier thand_and3yjis easier than4y_.
– Toothrot
4 hours ago
@toothrot If you were creating your own operator and wanted to operate on the next n lines.
– DJMcMayhem♦
4 hours ago
@Toothrot I guess I want to clarify that a little bit. In day to day vim editing, no it's really not particularly useful. I've almost never used it either. The reason it's useful is because it is the definition of a lot of useful commands.ddmight be more convenient thand_, but that's becauseddis just a mapping tod_. And it's also useful in vimscript.
– DJMcMayhem♦
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Good question!
As a motion by itself, you're right, _ is not a particularly useful key. :h _
*_*
_ <underscore> [count] - 1 lines downward, on the first non-blank
character |linewise|.
The key word here is "linewise". So if your goal is to just move the cursor, then ^, j, and + all get the job done, and there's not much point to _. But as an argument to an operator, _ is super powerful.
A lot of double-key shortcuts are actually just shortcuts for _. For example,
dd -> d_
cc -> c_
yy -> y_
Y -> y_
etc. Because it's a linewise motion, it basically selects the entire line to be operated on regardless of where your cursor starts, whereas ^ just goes from your character to the first non-blank.
It helps me when thinking about linewise vs blockwise motions to imagine that I'm pressing either v or V right before the motion. So I imagine d^ to be equivalent to v^d and I imagine d_ to be equivalent to V_d or V^d. Of course, you can also override a motion to force it to be linewise or characterwise. So dv_ is actually exactly the same as d^ or v^d, and dVw is like Vwd which is exactly like d_.
The reason it is specifically the "count-1th" line is so that 1dd (which is really d1_) deletes one entire line, 2dd (which is really d2_) deletes 2 entire lines, 3dd deletes 3 entire lines, etc.
answered 4 hours ago
DJMcMayhem♦DJMcMayhem
11.4k12862
All right, but would I ever actually use it?ddis easier thand_and3yjis easier than4y_.
– Toothrot
4 hours ago
@toothrot If you were creating your own operator and wanted to operate on the next n lines.
– DJMcMayhem♦
4 hours ago
@Toothrot I guess I want to clarify that a little bit. In day to day vim editing, no it's really not particularly useful. I've almost never used it either. The reason it's useful is because it is the definition of a lot of useful commands.ddmight be more convenient thand_, but that's becauseddis just a mapping tod_. And it's also useful in vimscript.
– DJMcMayhem♦
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Good question!
As a motion by itself, you're right, _ is not a particularly useful key. :h _
*_*
_ <underscore> [count] - 1 lines downward, on the first non-blank
character |linewise|.
The key word here is "linewise". So if your goal is to just move the cursor, then ^, j, and + all get the job done, and there's not much point to _. But as an argument to an operator, _ is super powerful.
A lot of double-key shortcuts are actually just shortcuts for _. For example,
dd -> d_
cc -> c_
yy -> y_
Y -> y_
etc. Because it's a linewise motion, it basically selects the entire line to be operated on regardless of where your cursor starts, whereas ^ just goes from your character to the first non-blank.
It helps me when thinking about linewise vs blockwise motions to imagine that I'm pressing either v or V right before the motion. So I imagine d^ to be equivalent to v^d and I imagine d_ to be equivalent to V_d or V^d. Of course, you can also override a motion to force it to be linewise or characterwise. So dv_ is actually exactly the same as d^ or v^d, and dVw is like Vwd which is exactly like d_.
The reason it is specifically the "count-1th" line is so that 1dd (which is really d1_) deletes one entire line, 2dd (which is really d2_) deletes 2 entire lines, 3dd deletes 3 entire lines, etc.
answered 4 hours ago
DJMcMayhem♦DJMcMayhem
11.4k12862
Good question!
As a motion by itself, you're right, _ is not a particularly useful key. :h _
*_*
_ <underscore> [count] - 1 lines downward, on the first non-blank
character |linewise|.
The key word here is "linewise". So if your goal is to just move the cursor, then ^, j, and + all get the job done, and there's not much point to _. But as an argument to an operator, _ is super powerful.
A lot of double-key shortcuts are actually just shortcuts for _. For example,
dd -> d_
cc -> c_
yy -> y_
Y -> y_
etc. Because it's a linewise motion, it basically selects the entire line to be operated on regardless of where your cursor starts, whereas ^ just goes from your character to the first non-blank.
It helps me when thinking about linewise vs blockwise motions to imagine that I'm pressing either v or V right before the motion. So I imagine d^ to be equivalent to v^d and I imagine d_ to be equivalent to V_d or V^d. Of course, you can also override a motion to force it to be linewise or characterwise. So dv_ is actually exactly the same as d^ or v^d, and dVw is like Vwd which is exactly like d_.
The reason it is specifically the "count-1th" line is so that 1dd (which is really d1_) deletes one entire line, 2dd (which is really d2_) deletes 2 entire lines, 3dd deletes 3 entire lines, etc.
answered 4 hours ago
DJMcMayhem♦DJMcMayhem
11.4k12862
answered 4 hours ago
DJMcMayhem♦DJMcMayhem
11.4k12862
answered 4 hours ago
DJMcMayhem♦DJMcMayhem
11.4k12862
answered 4 hours ago
DJMcMayhem♦DJMcMayhem
11.4k12862
11.4k12862
All right, but would I ever actually use it?ddis easier thand_and3yjis easier than4y_.
– Toothrot
4 hours ago
@toothrot If you were creating your own operator and wanted to operate on the next n lines.
– DJMcMayhem♦
4 hours ago
@Toothrot I guess I want to clarify that a little bit. In day to day vim editing, no it's really not particularly useful. I've almost never used it either. The reason it's useful is because it is the definition of a lot of useful commands.ddmight be more convenient thand_, but that's becauseddis just a mapping tod_. And it's also useful in vimscript.
– DJMcMayhem♦
3 hours ago
add a comment |
All right, but would I ever actually use it?ddis easier thand_and3yjis easier than4y_.
– Toothrot
4 hours ago
@toothrot If you were creating your own operator and wanted to operate on the next n lines.
– DJMcMayhem♦
4 hours ago
@Toothrot I guess I want to clarify that a little bit. In day to day vim editing, no it's really not particularly useful. I've almost never used it either. The reason it's useful is because it is the definition of a lot of useful commands.ddmight be more convenient thand_, but that's becauseddis just a mapping tod_. And it's also useful in vimscript.
– DJMcMayhem♦
3 hours ago
All right, but would I ever actually use it?
dd is easier than d_ and 3yj is easier than 4y_.– Toothrot
4 hours ago
All right, but would I ever actually use it?
dd is easier than d_ and 3yj is easier than 4y_.– Toothrot
4 hours ago
@toothrot If you were creating your own operator and wanted to operate on the next n lines.
– DJMcMayhem♦
4 hours ago
@toothrot If you were creating your own operator and wanted to operate on the next n lines.
– DJMcMayhem♦
4 hours ago
@Toothrot I guess I want to clarify that a little bit. In day to day vim editing, no it's really not particularly useful. I've almost never used it either. The reason it's useful is because it is the definition of a lot of useful commands.
dd might be more convenient than d_, but that's because dd is just a mapping to d_. And it's also useful in vimscript.– DJMcMayhem♦
3 hours ago
@Toothrot I guess I want to clarify that a little bit. In day to day vim editing, no it's really not particularly useful. I've almost never used it either. The reason it's useful is because it is the definition of a lot of useful commands.
dd might be more convenient than d_, but that's because dd is just a mapping to d_. And it's also useful in vimscript.– DJMcMayhem♦
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Vi and Vim Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fvi.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f19745%2fwhy-is-the-underscore-command-useful%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
