Re: :s/pattern Undocumented feature?
Bill McCarthy wrote: On Wed 20-Sep-06 1:08pm -0600, Tim Chase wrote: I hadn't seen a reply to this fly by, so I thought I'd let you know it wasn't entirely ignored :) It appears that :s/pattern produces the same result as :s/pattern//. I couldn't find that behavior in the docs. A hidden feature? (Or was I just not creative enough using helpgrep?) I'm not sure I've seen it anywhere in the docs, but I've noticed the same behavior not only in ex/vi/vim, but also in ed. I was originally hesitant to use it, not sure whether it was unintended and if it would be there from version to version. However, after finding it consistent from version 5.x of vim forward, in classic vi, as well as ed, I presume it's an undocumented feature, and have begun using it when I have the need. I scoured through the help, looking in a multitude of places I deemed sensible, and couldn't find anything documented either. Thanks, Tim, for confirming this feature. Bram, could you please add a note to the help for ':s' that documents this feature? I thought this was explained somewhere, but I can't find it. I'll add a remark below the explanation of an empty pattern. -- Snoring is prohibited unless all bedroom windows are closed and securely locked. [real standing law in Massachusetts, United States of America] /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\ ///sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\ \\\download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org/// \\\help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org///
Re: S
On 9/22/06, Eric Leenman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi I have a file where I deleted all lines that don't contain a certain pattern For example I want to delete all lines that don't contain XXX and YYY. Before: [start of file] abcde XXX fghij YYY 12345 AAA 67890 BBB klmno XXX pqrst YYY 09876 XXX 54321 BBB *()- XXX ,./;' YYY [end of file] After: [start of file] abcde XXX fghij YYY *()- XXX ,./;' YYY [end of file] :v/XXX.*YYY/d or :g!/XXX.*YYY/d Yakov
Re: :s/pattern Undocumented feature?
I scoured through the help, looking in a multitude of places I
deemed sensible, and couldn't find anything documented either.
Thanks, Tim, for confirming this feature.
Bram, could you please add a note to the help for ':s' that
documents this feature?
I thought this was explained somewhere, but I can't find it. I'll add a
remark below the explanation of an empty pattern.
I'm sure I've seen it in the past as well, but couldn't find it
either. Perhaps something directly in the help for :s
:[range]s[ubstitute]/{pattern}/{string}/[flags] [count]
For each line in [range] replace a match of
{pattern} with {string}.
For the {pattern} see |pattern|.
{string} can be a literal string, or something
special; see |sub-replace-special|.
as the help already describes that {string} can be something
special, it's not a far stretch to also note that
1) with no [flags], the trailing slash can be omitted
2) with no {pattern} and no [flags], both trailing slashes can be
omitted.
This might also be visually indicated in the definition line
with something like
:[range]s[ubstitute]/{pattern}[/{string}[/[flags] [count]]]
to show that the /[flags] portion and the /{string}/[flags]
portions are optional.
Just a few ideas,
-tim
Re: :s/pattern Undocumented feature?
I hadn't seen a reply to this fly by, so I thought I'd let you know it wasn't entirely ignored :) It appears that :s/pattern produces the same result as :s/pattern//. I couldn't find that behavior in the docs. A hidden feature? (Or was I just not creative enough using helpgrep?) I'm not sure I've seen it anywhere in the docs, but I've noticed the same behavior not only in ex/vi/vim, but also in ed. I was originally hesitant to use it, not sure whether it was unintended and if it would be there from version to version. However, after finding it consistent from version 5.x of vim forward, in classic vi, as well as ed, I presume it's an undocumented feature, and have begun using it when I have the need. I scoured through the help, looking in a multitude of places I deemed sensible, and couldn't find anything documented either. -tim
Re: :s/pattern Undocumented feature?
On Wed 20-Sep-06 1:08pm -0600, Tim Chase wrote: I hadn't seen a reply to this fly by, so I thought I'd let you know it wasn't entirely ignored :) It appears that :s/pattern produces the same result as :s/pattern//. I couldn't find that behavior in the docs. A hidden feature? (Or was I just not creative enough using helpgrep?) I'm not sure I've seen it anywhere in the docs, but I've noticed the same behavior not only in ex/vi/vim, but also in ed. I was originally hesitant to use it, not sure whether it was unintended and if it would be there from version to version. However, after finding it consistent from version 5.x of vim forward, in classic vi, as well as ed, I presume it's an undocumented feature, and have begun using it when I have the need. I scoured through the help, looking in a multitude of places I deemed sensible, and couldn't find anything documented either. Thanks, Tim, for confirming this feature. Bram, could you please add a note to the help for ':s' that documents this feature? -- Best regards, Bill
Re: :s/pattern Undocumented feature?
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 at 1:08pm, Tim Chase wrote: I hadn't seen a reply to this fly by, so I thought I'd let you know it wasn't entirely ignored :) It appears that :s/pattern produces the same result as :s/pattern//. I couldn't find that behavior in the docs. A hidden feature? (Or was I just not creative enough using helpgrep?) I'm not sure I've seen it anywhere in the docs, but I've noticed the same behavior not only in ex/vi/vim, but also in ed. I was originally hesitant to use it, not sure whether it was unintended and if it would be there from version to version. However, after finding it consistent from version 5.x of vim forward, in classic vi, as well as ed, I presume it's an undocumented feature, and have begun using it when I have the need. I scoured through the help, looking in a multitude of places I deemed sensible, and couldn't find anything documented either. -tim I found this accidentally too and mostly use it for removing extra carriage-returns, using :%s/^M (where ^M is a literal Ctrl+M). -- Hari __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: s?
Wim R. Crols wrote: Hi, Not really a request for help, but I was wondering if you guys ever use the 's' command. It's just a shortcut for 'cl', which I almost never need. Since I don't assume it was put in to be complete or something, I'm intrigued by it's enigmatic purpose. :) Thanks, Wim There are a number of such aliases whose sole function is to appeal to the lazy typist: :x for :wq x for dl (all of this without the quotes of course). Since I profess that laziness is the mother of invention, and since I'm lazy myself in a workaholic kind of way, the existence of such aliases (or of the possibility to create shortcuts for almost anything using :map, :abbrev and friends) doesn't bother me. Best regards, Tony.
Re: s?
Thanks for all the explanations everyone. I do see your points, and will try to add 's' to my weaponry :) Wim On 6/30/06, Wim R. Crols [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Not really a request for help, but I was wondering if you guys ever use the 's' command. It's just a shortcut for 'cl', which I almost never need. Since I don't assume it was put in to be complete or something, I'm intrigued by it's enigmatic purpose. :) Thanks, Wim
Re: s?
Not really a request for help, but I was wondering if you guys ever use the 's' command. It's just a shortcut for 'cl', which I almost never need. Since I don't assume it was put in to be complete or something, I'm intrigued by it's enigmatic purpose. :) I'll admit that it took me a while (several years) to add it to my repertoire of actively used vim commands. I do use it these days, as it *does* cut off that extra keystroke. And, yes, I'm that lazy. :) Most often, I end up using it (s) when I need to alter the end of a word, such as removing a terminal ess or removing some punctuation and continuing editing from there. Tangentially, I still can't say I use S, as I find cc much easier...both to remember and to type. Just one perspective on the matter... -tim
Re: s?
Not really a request for help, but I was wondering if you guys ever use the 's' command. It's just a shortcut for 'cl', which I almost never need. Since I don't assume it was put in to be complete or something, I'm intrigued by it's enigmatic purpose. :) Well, I use it when I want to replace a word that is for example 4 letters long. abcd efgh ijkl Suppose I want to replace efgh with something else. I place the cursor at the beginning of the word and type '4s'. The word disappears and ViM switches to the insert mode. -- Peter
Re: s?
On Friday 30 June 2006 15:16, Wim R. Crols wrote: Peter Slizik wrote: Not really a request for help, but I was wondering if you guys ever use the 's' command. It's just a shortcut for 'cl', which I almost never need. Since I don't assume it was put in to be complete or something, I'm intrigued by it's enigmatic purpose. :) Well, I use it when I want to replace a word that is for example 4 letters long. abcd efgh ijkl Suppose I want to replace efgh with something else. I place the cursor at the beginning of the word and type '4s'. The word disappears and ViM switches to the insert mode. -- Peter Yes, I figured out that use, but isn't 'cw' always easier since you don't have to count? And when you need to only replace part, like replacing abcd in abcdef, then I'd rather use 'cfd'. Just my 2c of course. Wim cfd may be quite different from 4s in this example, esp. if you intend to repeat the replacement on other places with .. - Michael
Re: s?
I can't remember why or when (it was so long ago), but I've always used 's' and 'S' in 'vi'. It never really occured to me to use 'cl' instead. It was just another command in the list. It was part of the original 'vi', but I'm not sure if you meant that by 'put in to be complete'. It is no more enigmatic then a lot of things in 'vi' which are there just to make editing incrementally better. There's 'C' vs 'c$', 'D', 'G', 'Y', etc., all of which are redundant with combinations of other commands. On 6/30/06, Wim R. Crols [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Not really a request for help, but I was wondering if you guys ever use the 's' command. It's just a shortcut for 'cl', which I almost never need. Since I don't assume it was put in to be complete or something, I'm intrigued by it's enigmatic purpose. :) Thanks, Wim
