On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Hans Fugal wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 at 11:07 -0600, Andrew McNabb wrote:
Wouldn't it be easier to do:
:s/yomama/yo mama/
and then "n&" for each subsequent replace?
I didn't know about &, that's cool. Yes, the :s approach is probably
cleaner and better, but for whatever reason it's the other that my
fingers do when I'm not driving them.
I find the /foo, cwbar, n. approach is more useful because you can do
other things that are more tricky to do with a regular expression
(especially vi regular expressions). You can even stick it in a macro if
it gets too complex, which you can't really do with the :s approach.
~ Ross
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
