I really like the behavior of YankRing, which lets me access the last several things I've yanked or deleted or changed without thinking.
However a complementary feature like this is completely missing for the . repeat command, most often when I type something I really want to repeat, then accidentally overwriting that edit by pressing x to clean something up.
Often it's possible to get back some time still by visual-mode yanking what I just typed, but this is not ideal.
It should be really easy to remember the past few commands.
The question is how possible is it to extract from Vim the representation of the last command contained in whatever stores what . will do before it gets blown away?
If it is as I fear, the only way is to get a plugin to bind to every single command that could edit something, and instrument it in such a way as to store our own repeat-buffer. This is really not practical because I can already imagine how many other plugins that will break. But, I would still really really want this feature if it is possible in any way.
Unfortunately, there's no way to get and replay the command behind the . command. The only workaround is to be perpetually in macro recording mode, and use the macro register as a replacement for the . command.
This tactic is employed by the RepeatLast plugin, which might offer what you want.
Keyword completion and/or ctrl-a in insert mode should cover your needs.
A more yankring-like solution should be possible but, as you say, probably a little too intrusive. Did you look on vim.org by yourself before asking others to do it for you?
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.
I am using vim for quite some time now, but several times per day I accidentally encounter an inconvenience by hitting ESC too early.
Assume I am editing the following file:
I want to change 'house' in this line.
'house' should stay like this.
This 'house' should become 'home'
The other 'house' should also change.
I want to change house to home in all lines except the second one. (In this simple example it would easy to write a :s command and perform the task, but usually the task is more specific and manual replacements are quicker and less error prone.) I navigate to the first occurrence of house, press cw, type hone, and hit ESC. After hitting ESC I realize that by accident I typed the letter n instead of m.
I could navigate to the next occurrence of house and hit . to repeat the faulty replacement. In this case I have to fix all hones and replace the n by m afterwards.
I could fix the mistake immediately, but then I can not repeat the same house->home replacement, since . would repeat the n->m replacement.
All of this would be no problem, if I had spotted the mistake before hitting ESC. My question is, if there is a way to undo leaving the insert mode, such that . will repeat both actions? Or similarly, is there a way to tell . to repeat the last to operations?
(Of course this sounds like recording a macro, but since I end up in this situation by mistake, I have not started a macro recording.)
As far as I am concerned, there's no command history of vim in that you could repeat the last two operations.
However, there's a plugin that could help you accomplish that. It's called the RepeatLast.vim plugin to address this exact requirement. It provides a 2\. key binding. The cost for using that plugin and how the plugin actually works is that... it actually enables macro recording all the time. But if you could live with that, it should deal with this sort of situation pretty fine.
I am not trying to play golf with my editor. I am just trying to improve my editing skills with vim.
Let's consider this piece of assembly that I would like to convert to C. In order to do it methodically, I want to make small changes iteratively line after line.
dm(__abcd_bar_id + axis) = f4;
f1 = dm(_abcd_foo_id + axis);
f5 = f4 - f1;
The job with this example is:
Simplify the first line with abcd_bar_id[axis] = f4
Simplify the second line with f1 = abcd_foo_id[axis]
Replace f1 in the third line with the second line
Remove the second line
These steps are not negotiable. I know I can easily get rid of all my dm(__variable + index) with a regex like the one below but this is off topic.
:%s/dm\s*(\s*_\+\(\w\+\)\s\++\s\+\(\w\+\)\s*)/\1[\2]/g
So, to achieve these changes I traditionally do this:
▶▶▶▶DelDelDelDelDel▶▶▶▶▶▶▶▶▶▶▶▶[DelDelDel▶▶▶▶Right]
▼DeleteDelDel[▶▶▶▶]Del
Home▶▶▶▶RightDelDelDelDel
Shift+End Shift+◀ Ctrl+c
▼End◀◀BackspaceBackspace Ctrl+v
And the result should be this:
abcd_bar_id[axis] = f4;
f5 = f4 - abcd_foo_id[axis];
What saves me is I am quite fast hitting the same key multiple times. However I am sure I can be more productive if I use vi features
vfahd
wh3lxi[wr]
j:%s/dm(_//Enter
f+hv2lxi[Escwr]
$hvF2ay
jf1hhplxxx
Well, this seems to me much more complicated for my brain because a pre-processing bain-time is needed before each keystrokes.
For instance if I want to move to f1 I need to parse with my eyes if there is no other 1 on the way to f1.
I really feel I need years of training to be 'fluent' with vim.
So the questions are:
How a vim guru will treat this example?
Does a vim guru exist?
I definitely don't consider myself vim guru, although I use it on the daily basis. Answering your second question first, probably there's somebody who can be treated as a guru, there are simply so many options and possibilities in vim, that everybody can have their own way of doing things. Moreover, because you can tailor vim to your needs, it's easy to simplify regular tasks, and those configurations may differ a lot. Also people who are considered gurus by me (like, for instance, Derek Wyatt) claim that have still much to learn about vim, so it can definitely take years to become one.
But don't be discouraged, it takes only some practise to start thinking vim-way, and your editing tasks will become much easier :)
Back to your example. First of all, I'd edit the first line with slightly less keystrokes:
dta
f)r]
bdTd
i[
The difference isn't huge in terms of number of keystrokes, but it illustrates different approach. It allows, in my opinion, much less pre-processing, which is the problem you highlighted. I divided those keystrokes into sections to show you my thought process:
delete till a
find ) and replace it with ]
back one word and delete Till (backwards) d
insert [
I don't have to think much, when I apply those changes. You might think that this is counter-intuitive, that I jumped to ) character first, but it was much easier for me to spot closing bracket than count words or
hit h or l multiple times. Of course you might know the keystrokes but when you edit something you don't always remember all of them. This comes with practise and forcing yourself to use some of them (like t/T)
to put them firmly under your fingers. Also, print a cheat-sheet trying to make use of every key, until you'll learn it by heart. It won't take long ;)
As William already suggested in the comment, I'd also think about macro here. It's a powerful and easy-to-use tool, which can really automate your changes.
I already know how to edit first line. In your example, I know that in the second step I'll be doing the same thing, but in slightly different location, so instead of editing first line, I instantly record a macro, but I have to make it universal
for easier application. So I think about putting my cursor in proper location first, before making any changes. My macro would look like this:
qq
0fd dta f)r] bdTd i[
q
Notice, that I added 3 keystrokes at the beginning (not counting qq, which starts recording macro to q register). That might look redundant in the first line, but it ensures proper location of the cursor before making any changes.
That way I can easily apply this macro in the second line with #q
Now, you have to replace this f1 in the third line. You're still in the second line with your cursor, so you just yank with:
0fay$
and then paste it to the third line:
j$bPlD
Using macros mith look like a redundant thing when you edit just 3 lines, but when you get used to making changes in a vim way, you'll really feel you're taking advantage of it's power.
When it comes to remembering recorded macros it's not that hard, you have to have the proper attitude. First of all, you record your macros to registers, so typing :registers will show you also your macros. Secondly, you can edit them,
by pasting specific register, altering it and then saving to the same register. And then you can play it with #[register_letter]. And finally, don't get attached to specific macros. Save one or two, use them to make multiple changes at
once and forget about them. And then record another one under the same letter. For example, if you realize that you have to make some repetitive change across the file, use qq, because it's fast and intuitive. After making changes you rarely
need to play the same macro over again, because whole buffer is already in the right state. But if you know, that you'll need it, record next macro under another letter. If you'll get comfortable making changes intuitively vim way, so that
they can easily be repeted, you'll find that's much easier to record another macro than trying to remember under which letter you recorded previous one.
I hope that this answer will convince you, that you don't need years of training to get fluent, but of course it won't happen overnight ;)
This question already has answers here:
Vim "show my last command" command?
(5 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I often find that I press the wrong set of keys but I can't figure out what I went wrong with.
In other words, a fat finger. However I don't know if it's a fat finger or not just from the output, a lot of the time yes I could figure it out, but instead I prefer Vim to tell me where I went wrong.
What I would like is to have something in my statusline that outputs the last set of valid key presses.
No showcmd does not work for my needs, that only outputs what I'm currently typing, tells me what Vim knows from me currently.
What I need is to know what Vim knew from me the last time I pressed keys.
So for examples, what I pressed on the left and what I want this addition in the statusline to tell me on the right.
j j
jjjjj j
5j 5j
4jj j
Isome text I
Aoh yeah A
. (Whatever the dot key just repeated)
Etc. You get the idea. :)
What would be a simple way to achieve this? It's probably some obscure variable that Vim keeps track of and I'm just not aware of it.
Any help is appreciated. :)
No, there's no built-in way to tell you if what you just typed is wrong and only a subset of what you type is recorded with some persistence (Ex commands, searches but not normal mode commands or inserts).
Recording everything you type is "easy" or rather "doable" with a key logger. Making sense of the content of the log (supposing we are able to decide where a command starts and where it ends) is another matter entirely. jjjj, 4j, /foo<CR>, 56G, or even using the mouse are all perfectly valid ways to move the cursor to foo and AFAIK, no one has ever written a program able to tell you which one of the method above is the most "valid".
So, in the meantime, you are left with your brain and how good it is at focusing on a given task and at manipulating abstract concepts: pay attention to what you do, identify bottlenecks and look for possible improvements.
From Seven habits of effective text editing:
While you are editing, keep an eye out for actions you repeat and/or spend quite a bit of time on.
Find out if there is an editor command that will do this action quicker. Read the documentation, ask a friend, or look at how others do this.
Train using the command. Do this until your fingers type it without thinking.
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