How would you use VIM to delete a word group, which includes white space characters, but is a standard grouping you would want to access when scripting? Specifically, when you have your cursor over some part of the following text, how would delete help="initialize, lines, h2, derivs, tt, history", from below. Maybe one would need to create specific mappings. But on the other hand, it seems pretty natural to want to access text like this if you are using VIM to edit scripting programs.
parser = argparse.ArgumentParser()
parser.add_argument("task", help="initialize, lines, h2, derivs, tt, history", default='yes')
Vim has a variety of text objects built-in, e.g. da" deletes quoted text (including the quotes; di" keeps the quotes). See :help text-objects for more information.
There are some plugins, e.g. textobj-user - Support for user-defined text objects and my own CountJump plugin that make it easy to define your own, "special" text objects. Also, you'll find many such text objects on vim.org. Based on your example, argtextobj.vim - Text-object like motion for arguments may be exactly what you need here.
If you are inside the " you want to delete, I would use:
di"diW
If you were above help=, I would use something like:
d/defEnter
to remove everything until you encounter default, followed by a few x, and left-wise motion, to remove the remaining characters.
I don't really think a new mapping is needed, but your experience may vary.
What makes sense from Vim's perspective and according to its design goals is to provide small and generic elements and a few rules to combine them in order to achieve higher level tasks. It does quite a good job, I'd say, with its numerous text-objects and motions but we always have to repeat domain-specific tasks and that's exactly where Vim's extensibility comes into play. It is where users and plugin authors fill the gap with custom mappings/object/functions and… plugins.
It is fairly easy, for example, to record a macro and map it for later reuse. Or create a quick and dirty custom text-object…
The following snippet should work with your sample.
xnoremap aa /\v["'][,)]/e<CR>o?\v\s+\w+\=<CR>
onoremap aa :normal vaa<CR>
With it, you can do daa, caa, yaa and vaa from anywhere within that argument.
Obviously, this solution is extremely specific and making it more generic would most certainly involve a bit more thought but there are already relatively smart solutions floating around, as in Ingo's answer.
Related
In vim (in Insert mode, after running exuberant ctags), I am using ctrl-x followed by ctrl-] to bring up a dropdown of various possible words/tokens. It's a great feature.
The problem is that by default, this list starts with a bunch of numeric options and automatically inserts the first numeric option, and if I backspace to get rid of the numbers and start typing a part of a word fresh -- with the idea of searching from the middle of the word -- the autocompletion behavior exits entirely.
I know I could type the first letter of the word that I want, then go from there. But that assumes that I know the first letter of the word, which is not necessarily a given.
For example, if I'm working on a pair-programming project with a friend during a long weekend, I might not remember at any given moment whether he called his method promoteRecordStatus(), updateRecordStatus() or boostRecordStatus(). In this example, I would like to type RecordStatus and get the relevant result, which does not seem to be possible at a glance with the current behavior.
So with that scenario in mind: Is there a simple, vim-native way to tell the editor to start its autocompletion without any assumptions, then search all available tokens for my typed string in all parts of each token?
I will of course consider plugin suggestions helpful, but I would prefer a short, vim-native answer that doesn't require any plugins if possible. Ideally, the configuration could be set using just a line or two.
The built-in completions all require a match at the starting position. In some cases, you could drop separator characters from the 'iskeyword' option (e.g. in Vimscript, drop # to be able to complete individual components from foo#bar#BazFunction()), but this won't work for camelCaseWords at all.
Custom :help complete-functions can implement any completion search, though. To be based on the tags database, it would have to use taglist() as a source, and filter according to the completion base entered before triggering the completion. If you do not anchor this pattern match at the beginning, you have your desired completion.
I'm wondering if there's a way to select variables intelligently in the same way that one can select blocks using commands like va}. There's some language-specific parsing going on to differentiate php and ruby, for example. For future reference, It'd be nice to tap into that - ideally selecting around various syntactic elements.
For example. I'd like to select around $array['testing'] in the following line of php:
$array['testing'] = 'whatever'
Or, lets say I want to select the block parameter list |item, index| here:
hash.each_with_index { |item, index| print item }
EDIT:
Specific regexps might address the various questions individually, but I have a sense that there ought to be a way to leverage syntactic analysis to get something far more robust here.
Though your given examples are quick to select with built-in Vim text objects (the first is just viW, for the second I would use F|v,), I acknowledge that Vim's syntax highlighting could be a good source for motions and text objects.
I've seen the first implementation of this idea in the SyntaxMotion plugin, and I've recently implemented a similar plugin: SameSyntaxMotion. The first defines motions for normal and visual mode, but no operator-pending and text objects. It does not skip over contained sub-syntax items and uses same color as the distinguishing property, whereas mine uses syntax (which can be more precise, but also more difficult to grasp), and has text objects (ay and iy), too.
You can define your own arbitrary text objects in Vim.
The simplest way to do custom text objects is defining a :vmap (or :xmap) for the Visual mode part and an :omap for the Operator-pending mode part. For example, the following mappings
xnoremap aC F:o,
onoremap aC :normal! F:v,<CR>
let you select a colon-enclosed bit of text. Try doing vaP or daP on the word "colon" below:
Some text :in-colon-text: more of the same.
See :h omap-info for another short example of :omap.
If you don't mind depending on a plugin, however, there is textobj-user. This is a general purpose framework for custom text objects written by Kana Natsuno. There are already some excellent text objects written for that framework like textobj-indent which I find indispensable.
Using this you can easily implement filetype-dependent text objects for variables. And make it available for everybody!
How can I can specific word wrapping for specific tags. For example, in LaTex I want word wrapping for my paragraphs but not for my figure commands (they are always very long and run off the screen).
Or with Javascript, I want the right margin for code to be at, for example 50 columns, but for the comments to be at only 40 columns
This is not builtin
You could probably script something yourself using a devious combination of `formatexpr` and synID(). I suggest you look at the help of the latter first, because it contains inspirational samples:
for id in synstack(line("."), col("."))
echo synIDattr(id, "name")
endfor
taken from :he synstack
The formatexpr is usually set to something like
:set formatexpr=mylang#Format()
thus delegating to a filetype plugin. You could implement the function to use different margins for different syntax contexts.
Bear in mind
the default formatexpr (if absent, formatprg) are probably no good for a source file (in my experience it has the tendency to string together lines as if they were text paragraphs). But then again, you can implement it any which way you want
that syntax highlighting may become out of sync. I'm not sure what happens when the cursor is at, say, 70% of a large document and you issue ggVGgq. It might not update the syntax highlighting all the way (meaning that your formatexpr function would get the 'wrong' synID() values. You get around this by saying something like
:syntax sync fromstart
this again might impact the highlighting performance depending on the size/complexity of the source and highlighting scripts
I'm thinking of translating a book from English to my native language. I can translate just fine, and I'm happy with vim as a text editor. My problem is that I'd like to somehow preserve the semantics, i.e. which parts of my translation correspond to the original.
I could basically create a simple XML-based markup language, that'd look something like
<book>
<chapter>
<paragraph>
<sentence>
<original>This is an example sentence.</original>
<translation lang="fi">Tämä on esimerkkilause.</translation>
</sentence>
</paragraph>
</chapter>
</book>
Now, that would probably have its benefits but I don't think editing that would be very fun.
Another possibility that I can think of would be to keep the original and translation in separate files. If I add a newline after each translation chunk and keep line numbering consistent, editing would be easy and I'd be able to programmatically match the original and translation.
original.txt:
This is an example sentence.
In this format editing is easy.
translation-fi.txt:
Tämä on esimerkkilause.
Tässä muodossa muokkaaminen on helppoa.
However, this doesn't seem very robust. It would be easy to mess up. Probably someone has better ideas. Thus the question:
What would be the best data format for making a book translation with a text editor?
EDIT: added tag vim, since I'd prefer to do this with vim and believe that some vim guru might have ideas.
EDIT2: started a bounty on this. I'm currently leaning to the second idea I describe, but I hope to get something about as easy to edit (and quite easy to implement) but more robust.
One thought: if you keep each translatable chunk (one or more sentences) in its own line, vim's option scrollbind, cursorbind and a simple vertical split would help you keeping the chunks "synchronized". It looks very much like to what vimdiff does by default. The files should then have the same amount of lines and you don't even need to switch windows!
But, this isn't quite perfect because wrapped lines tend to mess up a little bit. If your translation wraps over two or three more virtual lines than the original text, the visual correlation fades as the lines aren't one-on-one anymore. I couldn't find a solution or a script for fixing that behavior.
Other suggestion I would propose is to interlace the translation into the original. This approaches the diff method of Benoit's suggestion. After the original is split up into chunks (one chunk per line), I would prepend a >> or similar on every line. A translation of one chunk would begin by o. The file would look like this:
>> This is an example sentence.
Tämä on esimerkkilause.
>> In this format editing is easy.
Tässä muodossa muokkaaminen on helppoa.
And I would enhance the readability by doing a :match Comment /^>>.*$/ or similar, whatever looks nice with your colorscheme. Probably it would be worthwhile to write a :syn region that disables spell checking for the original text. Finally, as a detail, I'd bind <C-j> to do 2j and <C-k> to 2k to allow easy jumping between the parts that matter.
Pros for this latter approach also include that you could wrap things in 80 columns if you feel like I do :) It would still be trivial to write <C-j/k> to jump between translations.
Cons: buffer-completion suffers as now it completes both original and translated words. English words don't hopefully occur in the translations that often! :) But this is as robust as it gets. A simple grep will peel the original text off after you are done.
Why not use a simplified diff format?
it is linewise which is suitable for whole sentences.
The first character is significant (space, special, + or -)
It will be quite compact
Maybe you needn't those ## parts
Vim will support it and color the English sentence and the Finnish sentence in distinct colors.
Assuming you want to keep the 1 - 1 relationship between the original text and the translated text, a database table makes the most sense.
You'd have one table with the following columns:
id - Integer - Autonum
original_text - Text - Not null
translated_text - Text - Nullable
You'd need a process to load the original text, and a process to show you one line of the original text and allow you to type the translated text. Perhaps the second process could show you 5 lines (2 before, the line you want to translate, and 2 after) to give you context.
Background: JEdit (and some other text editors as well) support a feature called Multiple simultaneous text insertion points. (at least that's what I'm calling it here).
To understand what this means, take a look at the link.
Out of all the features in use in modern text editors, initial research seems to indicate that this is one feature that both Emacs and Vim do not actually support. If correct, this would be pretty exceptional since it's quite difficult to find a text editor feature that has not made its way into at least one of these two old-school editors.
Question: Has anyone ever seen or implemented this feature in either Emacs, Vim, or both? If so, please point me to a link, script, reference or summary that explains the details.
If you know an alternate way to do the same (or similar) thing, please let me know.
The vim way to do this is the . command which repeats the last change. So, for instance, if I change a pointer to a reference and I have a bunch of
obj->func
that I want to change to
obj.func
then I search for obj->, do 2cw to change the obj-> to obj., then do n.n.n. until all the instances are changed.
Perhaps not a flexible as what you're talking about, but it works frequently and is very intuitive and fast when it does.
moccur-edit.el almost does what you want. All the locations matching the regexp are displayed, and the editing the matches makes changes in the corresponding source. However, the editing is done on a single instance of the occurrence.
I imagine it'd be straight forward to extend it to allow you to edit them all simultaneously (at least in the simple case).
There is a demo of it found here.
Turns out, the newest versions of moccur-edit don't apply changes in real-time - you must apply the changes. The changes are also now undoable (nice win).
In EMACS, you could/would do it with M-x find-grep and a macro. If you really insist that it be fully automatic, then you'd include the find-next in the macro.
But honestly, this strikes me as a sort of Microsoft-feature: yes, it adds to the feature list, but why bother? And would you remember it existed in six months, when you want to use it again?
For emacs, multiple-cursors does exactly that.
Have a look at emacsrocks episode 13, by the author of the module.
I don't think this feature has a direct analogue in either Emacs or Vim, which is not to say that everything achievable with this feature is not possible in some fashion with the two 'old-school' editors. And like most things Emacs and Vim, power-users would probably be able to achieve such a task exceedingly quickly, even if mere mortals like myself could spend five minutes figuring out the correct grep search and replace with appropriate back-references, for example.
YASnippet package for Emacs uses it. See 2:13 and 2:44 in the screencast.
Another slight similarity: In Emacs, the rectangle editing features provided by cua-selection-mode (or cua-mode) automatically gives you multiple insertion points down the left or right edge of the marked rectangle, so that you can type a common prefix or suffix to all of those lines.
e.g.:
M-x cua-selection-mode RET (enable the global minor mode, if you don't already use this or cua-mode)
C-RET down down down (marks a 1x3 character rectangle)
type prefix here
C-RET (unmark the rectangle to return to normal editing)
It should be something like this in vim:
%s/paint.\((.*),/\1.paint(/
Or something like that, I am really bad at "mock" regular expressions.
The idea is substitute the pattern:
/paint(object,/
with
/object.paint(/
So, yes, it is "supported"
It seemed simple to do a basic version of this in Emacs lisp. This is for when you just want two places to insert text in parallel:
(defun cjw-multi-insert (text)
"insert text at both point and mark"
(interactive "sText:")
(insert-before-markers text)
(save-excursion
(exchange-point-and-mark)
(insert-before-markers text)))
When you run it, it prompts for text and inserts it at both point (current position) and mark. You can set the mark with C-SPC. This could be easily extended for N different positions. A function like set-insert-point would record current position (stored as an Emacs marker) into a list and then when you run the multi-insert command, it just iterates through the list adding text at each.
I'm not sure about what would a simple way to handle a more general "multi-editing" feature.
Nope. This would be quite difficult to do with a primarily console-based UI.
That said, there is similar features in vim (and emacs, although I've not used it nearly as much) - search and replace, as people have said, and more similarly, column insert mode: http://pivotallabs.com/users/brian/blog/articles/350-column-edit-mode-in-vi