Given the word foo in a text, if I type ciwbar<ESC> while recording it as a macro in w register and then type in the command line
:<C-r>w it will brings me :ciwbar^[
However if i type :<C-r>. it will only brings me bar
But both commands, the #w and dot, are able to perform the change inner word bar in other parts of my text
Is there any way to get all the content from the dot as I got the w register? I would like to paste it and work to automate the last command in macros in some steps forward
The . register and the . command are not the same thing. The . register stores the last text you have inserted and the . command repeats the last non-movement normal-mode command you executed.
Rather than try to force it to work another way, why not call a different registry and store values in there? The . registry will be overwritten by the last inserted text but many of the other registries are only changed when you actively tell vim to, so you can fill them yourself with the exact keypresses you want and call them again later.
Type
:reg
To see a list of what is currently inside each of your registries
Also have a look at this fantastic resource explaining vim's registers
https://www.brianstorti.com/vim-registers/
Related
The . key can be used to repeat the last insert command. However, we might do some navigation that is not part of the insert, but we want it repeated.
Imagine commenting out lines like so:
// line of text
// line of text
line of text
line of text
The insert command is to put the two forward slashes and a space. That can be repeated using the . key. The navigation would be to navigate down one line and then left some number of characters. That part is not captured by the . key command.
How can we achieve this functionality? I read that it was not available in Vi some years ago, but I'm wondering if it exists now in the latest version of Vim.
Press qX, where X is any of the writable registers (typically: pick any lowercase letter).
Do whatever actions you want to record.
Press q again to stop recording.
Press #X (where X is the same register) to play it back (count times, if used with a count).
Press ## to replay the most recently used macro (count times).
I read that it was not available in Vi some years ago, but I'm wondering if it exists now in the latest version of Vim.
If the Vim docs are to be believed, Vi did not support recording (steps 1-3), but did support #. Then you would have to manually yank the characters into the target register with "Xy<motion> or some other register-writing command. That also works under Vim, but I can't recommend it because it is much more error prone.
Another approach would be "block select then edit" approach:
ctrl + v - block select
then go down j or down-arrow
shift + i will put you in insert mode. Make the change here where you want it to be reflected on all the other lines you've selected.
esc twice will show/repeat that change you made on the line one.
If you have a big range of similar lines and want to put // at the beginning of it, you can do something like:
:15,25norm! I//<space>
You can also use visual area (vip selects an entire paragraph)
:'<,'>norm! I//<space>
using a pattern
:g/TODO/norm! I//<space>
I have the vim EasyMotion plugin installed.
Pressing,
<Leader><Leader>f searches forward from the current line.
<Leader><Leader>F searches backward from the current line.
Is there a way to search the entire visible part of the buffer only using 'f'? I would ideally not want to use two different bindings for searching forwards and backward. One single binding to search the entire visible portion of the buffer would be most ideal.
You can try a mapping like this:
nnoremap <leader><leader>f :execute "/\\%>" . line('w0') . "1\\%<" . line('w$') . "l"<left>
That's a confusing syntax, so I'll unpack it.
line('w0') and line('w$') return the line numbers of the first and last visible lines in the buffer, respectively, so you use them to find the range for the visible part.
The / search command allows a range to be specified, but with an odd syntax. The format is /\%>Xl\%<Yl where X is the line to start from and Y is the line to end at.
It's not possible to just drop the results from line() into a normal / invocation, but we can build a string, using . to join segments together, and once the command is built, pass it in to :exec to make it happen.
Finally, there's the <left>. That's for cursor positioning. When you execute <leader><leader>f, the whole mapping fires as though you were typing it, so you end up with the full :exec command on the line, and it ends with a ", but you want to type inside those quotes. Alternatively, you could remove "<left> from the end of the mapping, but then you'll have to remember to close the quote after typing your search term.
I'm not familiar with EasyMotion, so this may not give you exactly what you were asking for (I realized this after I typed up the answer), but it will let you run a search in the currently visible part of a buffer only, and you can probably adapt it to EasyMotion's purposes without too much difficulty.
Objective
Yank a line and use it to overwrite some of the lines following it.
Assumption
It is preferable in this case to manually select the lines to apply the substitution to. In other words, automated find and replace is not desired.
Analogy
Think of this process as creating a “stamp” from a line of text and going through a list of items—each item being a line of text following the “stamp” line—and deciding whether that line should be overridden using the contents of the “stamp” or not (in the former case, replacing the line with the “stamp”, of course).
This last step of triggering the replacement of the line under the cursor with the contents of the stamp, should be as easy as possible; preferably, as easy as pressing . (repeat last change) or ## (execute the contents of macro register #).
Issue
The straightforward workflow is, of course, as follows.
Position the cursor on the line to be copied (using movement commands).
Enter line-wise Visual mode (via the V command).
Copy selected text (using the y command).
Manually position the cursor onto the line to be replaced (using movement commands).
Enter Visual mode again to select the text to be replaced (using the V command).
Paste over the selection (using the p command).
However, this approach does not work when the replacement has to be done multiple times. Specifically, replacing the text on step 6 overrides the (unnamed) register containing the line initially copied and intended to be used as a “stamp”.
What I have tried
I have tried using "_y to either yank or delete into the _ register, avoiding the loss of the contents of the stamp, but I am looking for something that ends up being quick and comfortable to type as I manually go through the list and apply replacements where I see fit.
What I would prefer not to use
I would rather not use macros or “remaps” for this, if I can help it.
Illustrative sample file
See the sample starting file below, followed by the desired final stage, for further clarity.
Sample file, starting condition
At this stage, I select the blueberry and make it my “stamp”.
blueberry
apple
banana
coconut
apple
banana
coconut
apple
banana
coconut
Sample file, desired final state
After having moved through the list, I have applied some replacements, “stamping” over some lines, making them the same as the “stamp” blueberry line.
blueberry
apple
banana
blueberry
apple
banana
coconut
apple
banana
blueberry
To make your workflow work as expected, you need to paste from the previous yank register "0, rather than the default register.
So use Vy (or yy, which is the same) to yank the first line as before, then position the cursor over the line you want to replace, and do
V"0p
this replaces the current line with the previously yanked text, but doesn't overwrite the yanked text. I hope I understood you correctly!
EDIT 1: repeating using a macro
I was surprised that this operation isn't repeatable using ., but this is presumably due to the use of visual mode. To repeat the operation using a macro, do this:
qqV"0pq
The macro can then be repeated by pressing #q or ##.
EDIT 2: repeating using .
Here's an attempt at making it repeatable using . by not using visual mode. After yanking the stamp line and moving the cursor, do this:
"_S<c-r>0<delete>
which uses the insert mode <c-r> command to insert the contents of register 0. Note that the <delete> is necessary because the stamp line contained a carriage return. If it did not (i.e. yanking using y$ rather than yy) the <delete> could be omitted.
I don't think you are going to reach your goal without at least a little bit of "remapping".
I've been using this one for a "long" time:
vnoremap <leader>p "_dP
p and P still work as usual and I simply hit ,p over a visual selection when I want to repeat the same paste later. You could also map a single function key to make the whole thing quicker.
Also, do you know about the c flag for substitutions?
:%s/coconut/blueberry/c
will ask for your confirmation for each match.
Many answers here outline the general keys or commands. I've turned them into my ReplaceWithRegister plugin, which also handles many corner cases, and allows quick repeat via the . command. I also use your described create stamp and replace technique often, and found my script indispensable. Should you not like it, the plugin page also has links to alternative plugins.
A really easy solution: just put this script in your .vimrc, then toggle off the "buffer-overwriting" side-effect behavior of the delete key by typing ,, (two commas) to enter "no side effects" mode.
In this mode your workflow now works exactly as you described: yank whatever you like, then select, paste, and delete freely and repeatedly -- your buffer always remains intact. Then type ,, again if you wish to restore vim's normal buffer-altering behavior.
The script is the accepted answer here:
vim toggling buffer overwrite behavior when deleting
One can resort to Ex commands to achieve the said workflow.
For a single substitution, yank the “stamp” line (with yy, Vy,
:y, or otherwise), then repeatedly use the combination of the
:put and :delete commands:
:pu|-d_
Like any other Ex command, this one can be easily repeated with the
#: shortcut (see :help #:) — unless another Ex command was issued
in the meantime (in which case that command would be repeated instead).
Of course, you can also record the above Ex command as a macro and
invoke it that way, too.
Starting with your cursor at the start of the line to be duplicated:
y$ to yank the whole line (excluding the linefeed).
j and k to advance to the next line to be replaced (repeating as needed)
Replace the line with your yanked text
C<c-r>0<esc>0 (first time)
. (subsequent times)
If there are more lines to be replaced, goto 2.
The cursor will remain in column zero after each step.
Is it possible to provide some parameter when recording a macro in vim via prompt or some other ways?
Edit:
I have such code:
foo
bar
And I would like to surround each with ruby block:
expect do
foo
end.to raise_error(CustomClass)
expect do
foo
end.to raise_error(OtherCustomClass)
So, it is easy to create a macro that will result with:
expect do
foo
end.to raise_error()
expect do
foo
end.to raise_error()
But it will be nice to have prompt that will be used to set raise_error method parameter. In each use of macro this parameter will be different.
While I agree with everyone else that if you need this feature, you're probably going about things inefficiently, it is possible to insert a variable text string into a document as part of a macro. The trick is to store the text you want to use in your macro in a register.
yank some text into a named register, for example "xyw to yank a word into the x register
record your macro, qq, when you want to place the variable text, put it, for example "xp to put the text in the x register into the document where the cursor is
now, when you play your q macro, #q, it will use whatever is currently in the x register, so you can yank different text into the x register, play your q macro, and the newly yanked text will be used.
If you are talking about recording a macro with qx...q, this is not possible.
However you could still do : :let #y = substitute(#x, 'old_pattern', 'replacement', 'g') and then use #y.
You could also define a function:
function Play(myArg)
execute 'normal sequence_of_characters' . a:myArg . 'other_sequence_of_characters'
endfunction
call Play('foo')
Very particularly in the OP's situation, where you really only have precisely two variable pieces of content, I find the easiest method to be a bastardisation of #mkomitee's approach above.
Instead of manually saving the two ‘parameters’ into registers before each usage of the macro, I prefer to type the “first parameter,” visual-select it, evaluate the macro, then type the “second parameter.” To achieve this, I start the macro with a deletion command (a simple d, assuming you're always going to invoke the macro in visual-mode, for instance); then finish it with a command that switches to insert mode (like c or i), and finally, while still in insert mode, a Ctrl-O q to cause the macro to also leave Vim in insert mode when it's done.
As a slightly simple example, if the two “parameters” are single words, here's the keystrokes to create (and then invoke) a macro to manipulate widget.snog() to a parameterised widgetFoo.fooSnog(bar):
foob qq "zdw — we're now recording to the q register, with the first ‘argument’ in z
‸
"aP — prefix-paste from a fixed register used elsewhere in the document
widget.snog()‸
^ea␣Ctrl-rEscb~hx — paste the first arg, and capitalize
widget‸Foo.snog()
2w~b"zP — capitalize existing word, then paste the first arg again
widgetFoo.fo‸oSnog()
$Ctrl-Oq — move to the last position, enter insert-mode, and end the macro
widgetFoo.fooSnog(‸)
After finishing the first instance with bar, we can now use it several times:
obazEscb — set up our first ‘argument’,
widgetFoo.fooSnog(bar)
‸baz
#qquuxEsc — invoke the macro, and finish with the second one
widgetFoo.fooSnog(bar)
widgetBaz.bazSnog(quux‸)
ocorgeEscb##graultEsc — repeat a third time
widgetFoo.fooSnog(bar)
widgetBaz.bazSnog(quux)
widgetCorge.corgeSnog(grault‸)
ogarplyEscb##waldoEsc — … and so on
widgetFoo.fooSnog(bar)
widgetBaz.bazSnog(quux)
widgetCorge.corgeSnog(grault)
widgetGarply.garplySnog(waldo‸)
Of course, it looks laborious, typed out in such a long fashion — but it's surprisingly few key-strokes in practice, and very easy to train into your fingers.
tl;dr: type the first argument; enter macro-recording before deleting it into a register; manipulate your text as desired; then leave vim in insert-mode at the position of the second argument with Ctrl-Oq.
If you need to generate a code, which is the case, the best way for this is to use vim snippets. You can configure snippet to put cursor where you need when you [tab].
I'm aware of the possibility to edit multiple lines on the same column by doing:
CTRL+V down...down..down... SHIFT+I type_string_wanted
But I'd like to edit multiple specific locals addin new strings (maybe using cursor (h j k l) or mouse (with :set mouse=a)).
Like on this example, where I want to add the string 'XX' to specific locations. I.e.,
from this:
Hi.
My name is Mario!
to this:
XXHi.
My XXname is XXMario!
Any ideas?
Edit the first location and then use . to repeat the action at each additional location.
I'd reverse the order of your steps.
Instead of marking each location, then performing the change on all at once, just edit the first location, then use . to do the same to each of the others.
This doesn't add any keystrokes to your use case; instead of hitting some key to mark a spot beforehand, you hit . afterward.
If you suspect you might accidentally do some other things in between usages, you could record a macro using q<register> the first time, and play it back with #<register> each of the others.