I often have complex search patterns in vim. If I find the exact pattern, that matches, what I'm searching and want to delete all the matches, I have to go into command mode type :%s/...// with ... being the complicated pattern.
Is there an easier way to delete all results of a search, without going through them one by one?
This isn't completely completely without :%s/.., but without typing the pattern again:
:%s///g
If you leave the pattern empty, it will repeat the search. If that's something you do often, you can bind a key (sequence) to it.
If you absolutely need to avoid %s you can use gn together with a macro. Something along the lines of:
qq - record macro to register q
dgn - remove selection
n - jump to next match
q - stop recording
9999#q - run macro 9999 times
I would not call this a good solution by any means (the by #L3viathan proposed %s without entering a search pattern is superior), but it resolves the question as stated.
Related
Edit: I moved this over to the Vi and Vim site: https://vi.stackexchange.com/questions/13689/how-to-find-and-replace-in-vim-without-having-to-type-the-original-word
I'd like to optimize my "find and replace" workflow in Vim. It's something I do often, as I'm sure most of you do too. Usually something along the lines of -- copy a block and change the name of a variable in a few places. I know, I know, that probably triggers your "why are you copying and pasting code" reflex, but let's not go down that road... There are plenty of valid use cases :)
I'm well aware of the search and replace commands: :s or :%s but I don't like them. It forces me to type out both the full variable name I'm searching for and what I'm changing it to. Maybe there is a better way fix the the amount of typing with :%s? I often use long descriptive variable names, so that is really a deal breaker for me. I also don't like how typing out a variable name from scratch is typo prone and can consume time and brainpower hunting down typos. I much prefer typing it once, and then copying and pasting to just avoid this entirely if possible.
My current workflow uses some combination of movement/yank/select/search/put to move around the file and replace one by one. It is not great but has the benefit of avoiding typing out full variable names. I might just need to type the first few letters with / or use another movement command (i.e. fx) depending on what's around and then hit ve to select the whole word. I also don't mind that I have to repeat for every instance. I never do a full find replace without confirming each change. But it would be much preferable if I could repeat the replacement action with a single keystroke (which I can't do with this method). each replacement is usually something like n then ve then p (or even worse "0p)
Is there a faster way?
My own workflow is similar to yours:
To start, get the cursor on one instance, possibly with / or by navigation.
Hit * to find the next instance of that word.
Change one instance with cw and then the new variable name.
Then it's fast: n/N to get to the next/previous instance, and . to repeat the last edit.
This workflow gives me the same advantage as yours, in that I can review each case before applying the change, but it's just two keystrokes for each additional change.
Hope this helps.
I like the "visual highlight then edit" approach.
shift + v to highlight the region that you want to modify.
then :s/old/new/r where old is what word you want to replace with new.
r changes the first instance of that word old.
Note* There are options other than r which modify its behavior how you want to replace the word.
Frequently when I am doing a find and replace in vi I will do it like this:
:%s/find/replace/gc
This gives you the option to skip by pressing n, or replace by pressing y. But, sometimes I will accidentally skip over one in a large file by pressing n when I meant to press y.
How do I go backwards to the previous one and give me a second change?
Essentially, how to I find (search) the other direction temporarily? thanks.
I'm not sure if you would like to interrupt current find-replace operation and resume it again. But if that is acceptable, here is my suggestion:
Start your find-replace the way you mentioned:
:%s/find/replace/gc
After you accidentally skip over a substitution by pressing n, interrupt the search by pressing <ctrl-C>
Press <shift-N> to go back to the previous occurrence of your find term
Run find-replace a little differently while you are at this word: :.,$s/find/replace/gc
Continue the operation
All this functionality works with vim native capabilities without having to install any addon.
Note: The .,$ range specifier indicates to perform :s (substitute) operation over a range of lines that start with current line (indicated by .) and until last line (indicated by $).
Note2: It might be known to you, but reiterating for anyone else who stumbles upon this post searching for something similar - The % range specifier indicates to perform :s (substitute) operation over all lines of currently active buffer.
This is not answer to the question, but a very good alternative. I recently discovered the CtrlSF plugin and it improves the search /replace process dramatically.
Basically, you have the search results in a buffer and you can do all the replacements in this single buffer.
In your scenario, you first do :CtrlSF find, get a buffer with all the matches in all files and then you do /find and move with n over your targets and change them (of course, you can actually change only the first one and then repeat the replacement with .).
If you miss some target, you just hit N to go back to the previous result and replace it.
Seems like you can't back to previous match using this pattern. Appeared bar propose following commands y/n/a/q/l/^E/^Y but no one of them will return backward to previous match.
But you can use little different pattern described bellow:
Type this /pattern replacing pattern with interested word;
Your cursor is navigated to first occurrence, if you don't need to change it press n it will navigates you to the next occurrence;
Since you understand you need to replace a word, do this by typing cw, this command cuts the forward word and turns you to insertion mode;
Type in desired text on the released place and press ESC to switch back to command mode;
Now again press n until desired occurrence;
Since you realize that you need to change an occurrence, just press on . it will repeat previously mentioned actions;
If you want to go back just use N.
I am using vim to edit structured text files.
Sometimes I use search-and-replace feature, and sometimes I am better off with search, followed with a macro, in which case I have several macros at hand, and the choice of one depends upon the particular search result.
In both cases, though I have to spend some effort to arrive at an acceptable regex to satisfy my editing needs. As the regexs are often very long and sophisticated, I end up with both command-line history and search history full of my trial-and-error by-products. The correct regex is not always the last one in a series of attempts, so if I want to reuse the hard-earned regex in a similar editing situation, I have to dig through the pile again.
In search-and-replace scenario I have quickly fixed this with comments that I now put in place at the end of a would-be reusable search-and-replace command string, for example:
:%s/very_long_and_sophisticated_regex/another_long_and_sophisticated_regex/gc "comments on what this search and replace command does and how it might be reused
This way I can easily ignore the piles of stuff in my command line history and quickly find relevant re-use candidates, they are shown in different color. The commands are reusable right away, comments are ignored.
Not so with the search history, though.
Having rtfmed and searched the web, I have not found anything similar. At the moment I put quasi-comments using XXX at the end of reusable search strings, for example:
/search_string_containing_very_long_and_sophisticated_regex XXX comments on what it finds and how it might be re-used
This way I can at least find the right string for re-use, but I have to first delete 'XXX' and the comments.
I wonder if there is a more elegant way of commenting the search strings in search history, similar to command-line history.
You used the word "elegant" in your title, and that I don't have on offer. If instead you can also accept a quirky workaround that relies on Vim internals, here's one.
To restate your problem, it is possible to add comments after Ex :commands,
:AComplicatedExCommand -42 -quux " this fizzes the brobble
:HardToRememberCommand test.txt " use this to brew the framble
but the same is not possible for complicated search /queries (or ?queries).
I've just discovered that you can trick Vim by terminating your search query with a literal null byte:
/[Complicated]*regexp/^# this regexp finds all scrobbles
/another\+Rege\x*p/^# use this to search foo bars
The ^# here is a literal NUL. You can enter it by pressing CtrlV and then 000.
Vim will ignore everything after the null byte, but it'll still show the whole line in the search history, including the "comment".
You can add a regexp branch that never matches, e.g. /\%$indicator\|search string
\%$ is a special Vim atom matching the end of the file. Since that will never match when followed by the indicator text, the first branch (up to \|) will never match and therefore can represent your indicator.
I've created the TaggedSearchPattern plugin to make adding the tag and recalling it even easier.
I'm getting more and more comfortable with Vim after a few months.
BUT, there is only one simple feature I can't get any answer from the web. That is "Search and replace the results". The problem is that I know:
:/keyword to search, and hit enter "keyword" will be highlighted (of course with set hlsearch)
n, or N to navigate
:% s/keyword/new_keyword/g to replace all occurences of keyword with new_keyword.
BUT, I would think that there must be a way to search, and replace the matched keyword (highlighted) with any new_keyword WITHOUT doing ":% s/keyword/new_keyword/g", which is a lot of typing considering search & replace is such a day-to-day feature.
Any answers/comments will be greatly appreciated!
If you've already done a search you can do a substitution for the same pattern by simply leaving out the pattern in the substitute command. eg:
/keyword
searchs for "keyword", and then:
:%s//new_keyword/g
will replace all occurrences of "keyword" with "new_keyword".
Searching and using the dot command (you didn't meantion you are using the dot command, that's why I highlight it) to repeat the last input action is my best bet here.
I use s///g for search and replace.
Well, since #keyword# and #new_keyword# account for most of the characters, and you need some way to differentiate between them (i.e., a character in vim, or tab between entry fields in dialog in a different editor), you're left with maybe four or five keystrokes beyond that.
So I think you're probably overestimating number of keystrokes and also forgetting that (1) it becomes very natural, and (2) working this way allows you also to naturally modify the action performed by specifying a different range or option flag.
But you can cut down on keystrokes. If you want you can map a key to automatically bring up the command line with '%s/' already in place. e.g.:
nmap s :%s/
The command above would remap 's' (I'm not recommending remapping to that key, but it gives the idea) and set you up to insert the keyword.
Also, you can set the 'gdefault' option to default to substituting multiple times per line. This lets you skip the ending '/g' in your keystrokes:
set gdefault
See ':h gdefault' for help section on that option.
In the end I would say just get used to the default way it works, because using it that way allows you to keep same basic operation when you want to specify different ranges or option flags, and creating a new special map is just another thing to remember. gdefault may be worth setting if you think you're going to want it majority of time, adding /g flag at end when gdefault is set has effect of turning /g off. . .
Move to the first highlighted word then record a macro for replacing the word and moving to the next one, e.g:
gg
n
qq
caw new_word^[
n
q
#q
##
##
...
I am using Vim to read through a lot of C and Perl code containing many single letter variable names.
It would be nice to have some command to change the name of a variable to something more meaningful while I’m in the process of reading the code, so that I could read the rest of it faster.
Is there some command in Vim which could let me do this quickly?
I don’t think regexes would work because:
the same single letter name might have different purposes in different scoping blocks; and
the same combination of letters could be part of another longer variable name, a string literal, or a comment.
Are there any known solutions?
The following is how to rename a variable which is defined in the current scope {}.
Move your cursor to the variable usage. Press gd. Which means - move cursor to the definition.
Now Press [{ - this will bring you to the scope begin.
Press V - will turn on Visual Line selection.
Press % - will jump to the opposite } thus will select the whole scope.
Press :s/ - start of the substitute command.
<C-R>/ - will insert pattern that match variable name (that name you were on before pressing gd).
/newname/gc<CR> - will initiate search and replace with confirmation on every match.
Now you have to record a macros or even better - map a key.
Here are the final mappings:
" For local replace
nnoremap gr gd[{V%::s/<C-R>///gc<left><left><left>
" For global replace
nnoremap gR gD:%s/<C-R>///gc<left><left><left>
Put this to your .vimrc or just execute.
After this pressing gr on the local variable will bring you to :s command where you simply should enter new_variable_name and press Enter.
I know it's an old question, and #mykola-golubyev's way obviously IS the best answer for the particular case in the OP question (which, I assume is going through obfuscated code where you're likely to have multiple blocks with same var names); but with the question name like that many people coming here from google searches probably look for less situation-specific ways to rename variables in VIM -- and those can be more concise
I'm surprised no one suggested this way:
* :s// NEWNAME /gc
The * is the same as gn - search the next occurrence of the word under the cursor AND make it the last searched pattern; you can then omit the search pattern in the substitute command and VIM will assume that last one is the pattern to search for.
For small amounts of var copies, here's an even quicker one:
* cw NEWNAME <esc> then repeat n. for other occurrences
* is search for occurrences, cw is change word, n goes to the next occurrence of the last searched term and . repeats the last command (which is now change word to NEWNAME)
(Credits for me knowing all this go to #doomedbunnies on Reddit)
Another cool trick: (credits to #nobe4)
* cgn NEWNAME <esc> then repeat . for other occurrences
cgn is "change whatever is the result of (find next occurrence)". Now that this is the last command, you don't need the n to go to the next occurrence, so fewer strokes again, and, more importantly, no need to alternate n and .. But, obviously, this one has the drawback of not having a way to skip an occurrence.
Here are some benefits of these over other similar approaches, or language-specific plugins with refactoring support:
no command mapping, no fiddling with .vimrc(or init.vim), so you can use it in any VIM copy you come across (e.g. a quick task on some VPS or your friend's machine where configuring VIM your way would defeat the purpose of 'quick')
using * or gn for word selection is very quick -- just one keystroke (well, let's say 1.5)
using * or gn makes sure you don't get any matches inside other words, just as :%s/<C-R>//gc does. Beats typing the :%s/\<OLDNAME\>/NEWNAME/gc by hand: I personally tend to forget to use the \< things to limit matches to whole words only.
Not using a scope will only result in a few extra strokes of n to skip unwanted matches -- probably even fewer than the extra strokes needed to limit the scope to a certain code block. Under normal circumstances, your variables are most likely somewhat localised to a certain code block anyway.
AFAIK, there is no actual refactoring support in VIM. When doing a rename with the intent of a refactor I usually take the following precautions:
Limit the scope of the change my using marks.
When entering the regex, bracket the name with \< and >. This will make it match an entire word which reduces the types of incorrect renames that will occur.
Don't do a multiline replace to reduce chances of a bad replace
Look through the code diff carefully if it's anything other than a small change.
My end change looks something like this
:'a,'bs/\<foo\>/bar
I would love to be wrong about there not being a refactoring tool for VIM but I haven't seen it.
Put this in your .vimrc
" Function to rename the variable under the cursor
function! Rnvar()
let word_to_replace = expand("<cword>")
let replacement = input("new name: ")
execute '%s/\(\W\)' . word_to_replace . '\(\W\)/\1' . replacement . '\2/gc'
endfunction
Call it with :call Rnvar()
expand("<cword>") gets the word under the cursor. The search string uses % for file-scope, and the \(\W\) patterns look for non-word characters at the boundary of the word to replace, and save them in variables \1 and \2 so as to be re-inserted in the replacement pattern.
You could use the 'c' modifier in the global search and replace that would ask you for confirmation for each replace. It would take longer but it might work for a non-humongous code file:
%s/\$var/\$foo/gc
The c stands for confirm.
In c, you may be able to make some progress using cscope. It makes an attempt at understanding syntax, so would have a chance of knowing when the letter was a variable.
If this is across multiple files, you may consider taking a look at sed. Use find to grab your files and xargs plus sed for a replace. Say you want to replace a with a_better_name in all files matching *.c, you could do
find . -name "*.c" | xargs sed -i -e 's/a/a_better_name/g'
Bear in mind that this will replace ALL occurrences of a, so you may want a more robust regex.