cm0002@piefed.world to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 1 month agoExit Signlemmy.mlimagemessage-square72fedilinkarrow-up1870arrow-down112 cross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
arrow-up1858arrow-down1imageExit Signlemmy.mlcm0002@piefed.world to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 1 month agomessage-square72fedilink cross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
minus-squareHeuristicAlgorithm9@feddit.uklinkfedilinkarrow-up12·1 month agoI think it’s w = write and q = quit so the letters make more sense
minus-squaredarklamer@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up13·1 month agoNo, it isn’t, x writes only when changes have been made, while w writes unconditionally.
minus-squarejosefo@leminal.spacelinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down1·1 month agoWhy would you want to write again if no changes were made? It’s some obtuse behavior
minus-squaredarklamer@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up5·1 month 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.