Hi all, On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Yegappan Lakshmanan <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 4:53 AM, Drew Neil <[email protected]> wrote: >> I agree with h_east that if you’re planning to run the :substitute command >> across multiple files, it makes sense to use: >> >> :cfdo %s/pattern/replacement/g >> >> and not: >> >> :cdo s/pattern/replacement/g >> > > Depending on the task, you can use either the ":cdo" or the ":cfdo" commands. >
I haven't see any replies so far. I am not sure whether we are agreeing to add both the commands or only the cfdo/lfdo commands? Do you guys think that only the cfdo/lfdo commands will be useful? Regards, Yegappan > > If you want to perform text search/replace across all the files in the > quickfix > list, then the ":cfdo" command with ":%s/.../g" is the correct option (as it > is > more optimal). > > This is similar to using the "g" argument to the ":substitute" command to > replace all the matching text in a single line. And using the "%" range > to replace text in all the lines. If you want to replace multiple matching > text across all the lines in a file, then you have to pass both "%" and "g". > If you don't, then the text will not be correctly replaced. This is not a > problem with the ":substitute" command. > >> >> I can also see myself wanting to use the :cdo command in combination with >> :normal for certain types of task. But I’ve come across another problem. >> Suppose that we have a text file containing these four lines of text: >> >> http://example.com >> http://example.org >> http://example.net >> http://example.com http://example.org http://example.net >> >> Now let’s say that we want to turn each occurrence of ‘http’ to ‘https’. (We >> could use the :substitute command here, but let me use this to demonstrate a >> problem with using :normal). We’ll use :vimgrep to populate the quickfix >> list with 6 matches: >> >> :vimgrep /http\zs:/g % >> >> Then we’ll insert the ’s’ character in front of the colon with this command: >> >> :cdo normal is >> >> The resulting text looks like this: >> >> https://example.com >> https://example.org >> https://example.net >> https://example.com httsp://example.org htstp://example.net >> >> In the last line, we get ‘https’, then ‘httsp’, then ‘htstp’. Not ideal! >> >> The problem here is that the quickfix list records line and column numbers. >> If characters are added or removed near the start of the line, the column >> numbers for later matches on that line will no longer line up with the match >> that created the original quickfix list entry. >> >> I’m not sure if this is a problem with the quickfix list, with :cdo, or with >> :normal. >> > > This is a problem with the quickfix list functionality. Currently when a line > is added or removed, then the line numbers in the quickfix list entries > are updated. But when a line is modified, the column numbers in the > quickfix list entries are not updated. Refer to the qf_mark_adjust() > function. > > In the above example, you should use ":s/../g" instead of the ":normal" > command. > > Regards, > Yegappan > >> >> On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Yegappan Lakshmanan <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 9:55 AM, h_east <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Hi Yegappan and Bram >>> > >>> > 2015-7-25(Sat) 12:27:56 UTC+9 [email protected]: >>> >>> >> Hi Hirohito, >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 3:42 PM, h_east wrote: >>> >> > Hi Yegappan, Bram and List >>> >> > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > Thanks for testing the patch. I will send out an updated patch >>> >> >> >> > in a few days. >>> >> >> >> > Hopefully this time it will get included. This has been >>> >> >> >> > outstanding for more >>> >> >> >> > than two years. >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> The updated patch (against vim 7.4.796) is attached. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Thanks. So now it's ready to include, right? >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Yes. Of course :-) >>> >> > >>> >> > I confirmed this patch. >>> >> > >>> >> > I found unexpected behaviors. >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> Thanks for testing the patch and sending the bug report. I am attaching >>> >> an updated patch that fixes the two problems. Let me know if you see >>> >> any >>> >> issues with this attached patch. >>> > >>> > I confirmed that reported problem have been fixed. >>> > Thank you for quickly fixes. >>> > >>> > I think it is better to discuss. >>> >> > This is my opnion. >>> >> > When the search pattern exists more in a row, I think :cdo/:ldo >>> >> > confuse to use. >>> >> > and the processing time tends to be long. >>> > >>> > Do you understand that the results of the following two commands are >>> > different, >>> > When the search pattern exists more in a row? >>> > >>> >>> The ":cdo" command executes the supplied command for every valid entry >>> in the quickfix list. It is upto the supplied command to perform the >>> appropriate >>> action for every entry. >>> >>> > >>> > (1) :cdo s/\<cmdidx\>/ex_&/g | update >>> > >>> >>> In this case, the supplied substitute command replaces all the occurrences >>> of >>> cmdidx in the current line. >>> >>> > >>> > (2) :exec "cdo norm!iex_\<Esc>:w\<CR>" >>> > >>> >>> In this case, the supplied replaces only the first occurrence of cmdidx. >>> This is >>> not a problem with the ":cdo" command. This is a problem with the user >>> supplied >>> command. >>> >>> > >>> > The (1) is processed all search pattern. >>> > But, The (2) is processed first search pattern in a row. >>> > >>> >>> This is the expected behavior as this is a problem with the user >>> supplied command. >>> >>> > >>> > ':cdo' is not necessary, When use only :substitute. >>> > >>> > When we use the ':cfdo' command such as ':cdo', Speed is also faster. >>> > >>> > :cfdo %s/\<cmdidx\>/ex_&/g | update >>> > >>> > So I propose to including patch only ':cfdo' and ':lfdo'. >>> > >>> > How do you think? >>> > >>> >>> No. In some cases the ":cdo/:ldo" commands are useful and in some >>> other cases ":cfdo/:lfdo" commands are useful. >>> >>> You are assuming that the ":cdo/:cfdo" commands will only be used >>> to perform substitutions and the results in the quickfix/location lists >>> are >>> from a search command (e.g. vimgrep). This is not always the case. >>> You can populate the quickfix list with output from various tools >>> (e.g. cscope, tags, lid, global, build output, static analysis output, >>> etc.). >>> >>> Regards, >>> Yegappan >>> >>> >> > >>> >> > Case#1 >>> >> > How to reproduce: >>> >> > 1. cd to vim src dir. >>> >> > $ cd (Vim clone dir)/vim/src >>> >> > 2. Start Vim. (including this patch version Vim) >>> >> > $ vim -N -u NONE >>> >> > 3. Grep word "cmdidx" from source and header using vimgrep. >>> >> > :vimgrep "\<cmdidx\>" **/*.[ch] >>> >> > 4. Open quickfix window. >>> >> > :copen >>> >> > 5. Do :cdo command. (Intentionally forget the '| update') >>> >> > :cdo s/\<cmdidx\>/ex_&/g >>> >> > >>> >> > Expect behavior: >>> >> > - E37 occurs once. >>> >> > >>> >> > Actual behavior: >>> >> > - E37 occurs continuously. >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > -------- >>> >> > Case#2 >>> >> > How to reproduce: >>> >> > 1~4. (Same abobe.) >>> >> > 5. Do :cdo command. (Intentionally forget the ":w\<CR>") >>> >> > :exec "cdo norm!iex_\<Esc>" >>> >> > >>> >> > Expect behavior: >>> >> > - E37 occurs once. >>> >> > >>> >> > Actual behavior: >>> >> > - E37 occurs continuously. >>> >> > >>> >> > And, When press Ctrl-C after the '-- More --' display, buffer.c was >>> >> > modified unexpectedly. >>> >> > >>> >> > [original buffer.c:4901] >>> >> > if (eap->cmdidx == CMD_unhide || eap->cmdidx == CMD_sunhide) >>> >> > >>> >> > [modified buffer.c:4901] >>> >> > if >>> >> > (eap->exexexexexexexexexexexexexexexexexexexexexexexex___________________ >>> >> > _____cmdidx == CMD_unhide || eap->cmdidx == CMD_sunhide) >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > -------- >>> >> > This is my opnion. >>> >> > When the search pattern exists more in a row, I think :cdo/:ldo >>> >> > confuse to use. >>> >> > and the processing time tends to be long. >>> -- -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
