On 05/13/12 13:44, richard emberson wrote:
> In a script when one calls "cursor(line, column)" or
> "execute normal 4rx", implicitly it is the current buffer
> that is the target; it is the current buffer that is changed.
> I'd like to know if its possible to explicitly alter the
> target buffer in scripts such that, optionally, the same
> edit commands can be applied to either the default buffer
> or to some other, possibly hidden buffer.
I do it regularly in slightly different contexts (macros), and a
quick test of a function worked for me:
function! SomeEdits(buffer)
if a:buffer
exec 'sp #'.(a:buffer)
endif
try
" echo bufnr('%')
" some boring edit
g/foo/s/$/XXX
finally
if a:buffer
q
endif
endtry
endfunction
call SomeEdits(0) " do some edits in the current buffer
call SomeEdits(14) " do the edits in buf#14
In my case, I based the decision off an argument named a:buffer, but
you could just as easily come from a global. It might choke a
little if the 'buftype' isn't empty (it did for "nofile" when I
tested it). I chose to do a split/quit pair as it tends to
interfere less with my current editing, but you could also "setlocal
hidden" then ":e"dit the other file, then return to the original by
saving/restoring bufnr().
-tim
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" 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
