cm0002@piefed.world to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 6 days agoExit Signlemmy.mlimagemessage-square72linkfedilinkarrow-up1916 cross-posted to: [email protected]
arrow-up1916imageExit Signlemmy.mlcm0002@piefed.world to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 6 days agomessage-square72linkfedilink cross-posted to: [email protected]
minus-squareHeuristicAlgorithm9@feddit.uklinkfedilinkarrow-up13·6 days agoI think it’s w = write and q = quit so the letters make more sense
minus-squaredarklamer@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up13·6 days agoNo, it isn’t, x writes only when changes have been made, while w writes unconditionally.
minus-squarejosefo@leminal.spacelinkfedilinkarrow-up1·6 days agoWhy would you want to write again if no changes were made? It’s some obtuse behavior
minus-squaredarklamer@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up5·6 days agoOne obvious use-case is to cause the file to get a new timestamp, which for example tools like make look at.
I think it’s w = write and q = quit so the letters make more sense
Also :x is the same as :wq
No, it isn’t, x writes only when changes have been made, while w writes unconditionally.
TIL. Ty!
Why would you want to write again if no changes were made? It’s some obtuse behavior
One obvious use-case is to cause the file to get a new timestamp, which for example tools like make look at.