Is there a reason why the short for 'modifiable' is 'ma' and not 'mo'?

I've entered :h 'mo' and I got E149, so there doesn't seem to be any clash...


It is probably because there are two similarly-named options: 'modifiable' (shortened to 'ma') and 'modified' (shortened to 'mod').

  • 1
    But they don't clash... And there are many other pairs of similarly named options which have similar shorthands, e.g. nu/rnu, wic/wig, and most of all, wcm/wc where the difference is in the trailing letter of the former, just like for mod/could-have-been-mo. – Enlico Dec 14 '20 at 14:48
  • This type of back-and-forth is why this site is ill-suited to 'why' questions. – wbogacz Dec 14 '20 at 14:58
  • 1
    @wbogacz, in general I agree. But apprently there's a history-of tag. I guess given that tag, going from why to do you know about the historical decision of xyz? is ok, no? – Enlico Dec 14 '20 at 15:11
  • There seem to be a number of these questions in the past, some answered, and some accepted, so the feeling is clear they are positive. What isn't positive is the point-counterpoint that they can generate. I envision Dan Aykroyd/Jane Curtin. – wbogacz Dec 14 '20 at 16:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.