UX: ":edit *.js" should suggest :next #12139
Comments
That seems reasonable. I don't think |
Hello. I want to take this issue. |
|
Thank you very much @justinmk |
Are you still interested in working on this @armhzjz? Since it's been 25 days and I haven't seen any [WIP] pull request. I'd be interested in doing this too if you've stopped working on the issue. |
Hello @pta2002. I was on vacations and came back this Wednesday (two days ago) - that's why you saw no movement here. But I am in deed interested still on this and currently working on this. Thanks for asking. |
Alright, good luck! |
Hai I. Want to solve this issue |
Hello @ritwikchakraborty123, |
okay |
any updates on this one?:) |
PR created. It seems it has big chances of being merged as long as I provide a test. |
Is this issue still open?? @armhzjz. |
Hi @nc1337 , still on. |
Actual behaviour
When simply trying to edit some additional files I often type
:e *.js
or something similar; this almost ALWAYS results inE77: Too many file names
.Expected behaviour
It's pretty clear what the user wants in this situation; they want to open the files as buffers! I'm sure there are legacy reasons for this error, but it's a pretty poor experience these days that probably doesn't need to stick around. (at least with
set hidden
enabled)I've learned I can run
:next *.js
which has the behaviour I want, butnext
is a pretty unintuitive name and I don't really see a reason to have more than one command for this functionality.In the worst case, perhaps we could simply add a note saying
Maybe you meant to use :next
to the error message? It took a bit of digging to find that solution and I'd love it if others didn't need to do the same.Thanks for all your work everyone!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: