Display zero when relativenumber is enabled

[joelim-work]

Regarding the formatting of line numbers, I think it's simpler and more readable to just pass in lnwidth as an argument to the format specifier, as opposed to building an intermediary format string.

Also I don't think it's necessary to specify precision for integers, so I have removed it. In fact, this was probably why the original pull request #133 didn't display a zero when relativenumber is enabled - I have found that fmt.Sprintf("[%1d]", 0) results in [0] while fmt.Sprintf("[%1.d]", 0) results in [ ].

[joelim-work]

Also, I do intend to slow down on pull requests after this one, for my own sanity. Apologies for all the recent spamming 😅

[gokcehan]

@joelim-work vim also seems to display 0 so I guess it is better to do the same here. Thanks for the patch.

Also thanks for all the patches so far. I don't remember anything controversial so they did not feel like spam at all. I'm sure many other users also appreciate your contributions. So feel free to send more patches any time you feel like in the future but also keep your sanity at the same time of course :)

[shabahengam]

I know that there is no need to set number if we have relativenumber but if I put this in lfrc

set number
set relativenumber

then there is no 0 and if I remove set number then there is 0.is this normal?
ps: right now I can't attach image file to show what I mean.sorry for that

[joelim-work]

Hi @shabahengam, it is perfectly valid to define both number and relativenumber at the same time. If number is enabled in addition to relativenumber, then the actual line number will be displayed for current line, and in this case the fix for displaying 0 is not relevant. This behaviour is consistent with Vim.