> In order to avoid further arguments about whether a separate function for read-and-close is
> better or not,
> I've added an alternative proposal - to rename the option to 'read_close' or
> 'read_and_close'.
> After all, the most important thing is that it's not 'read_only'.
Hi Andrey,
I don't expect to change your mind on the option read_only needing to be changed and frankly
I'm not
really all that concerned about what it's going to be called, but since it's been
mentioned several times that
read only has a commonly understood meaning I supply this for voter consideration:
----
# vim -R ~somefile~
:help 'readonly'
# man vim
-R Read-only mode. The 'readonly' option will be set. You can still edit the buffer,
but will be prevented
from accidently overwriting a file.
---
This is only 1 example that's analogous to opening a session as read only, I'm sure
there's many more
lurking in my subconscious that causes me to think it's an intuitive name for what it does.
If I didn't know already, when presented with the option for "read_and_close" I would
probably have a
minor wtf moment but it *would* make me read the docs to understand what exactly it means to me if I
use it, since it's an unconventional option name.