In a key mapping I use the command ':%s//\=@o/gce'.
The command executes as expected except that it behaves as if the c flag
were not set. Is this flag unavailable in a key mapping, or is there some
other option that needs to be set for it to work. It works as expected at
the command line.
--
On 2014-11-14 16:02, Graham Lawrence wrote:
> In a key mapping I use the command ':%s//\=@o/gce'.
>
> The command executes as expected except that it behaves as if the c
> flag were not set. Is this flag unavailable in a key mapping, or
> is there some other option that needs to be set for it to
On Friday, November 14, 2014 4:02:55 PM UTC-8, porphyry5 wrote:
> In a key mapping I use the command ':%s//\=@o/gce'.
>
> The command executes as expected except that it behaves as if the c flag were
> not set. Is this flag unavailable in a key mapping, or is there some other
> option that need
On 2014-11-15 13:59, porphyry5 wrote:
> On Friday, November 14, 2014 4:02:55 PM UTC-8, porphyry5 wrote:
> > In a key mapping I use the command ':%s//\=@o/gce'.
> >
> > The command executes as expected except that it behaves as if the
> > c flag were not set. Is this flag unavailable in a key mapp
On Monday, November 17, 2014 5:27:47 AM UTC-6, Tim Chase wrote:
> On 2014-11-15 13:59, porphyry5 wrote:
> > On Friday, November 14, 2014 4:02:55 PM UTC-8, porphyry5 wrote:
> > > In a key mapping I use the command ':%s//\=@o/gce'.
> > >
> > > The command executes as expected except that it behaves
I thank you both, Tim and Ben, for your help. Let me explain the situation
more fully. I'm testing the feasibility of semi-automated repair of texts
that have been ocr-ed from less than ideal sources, most notably from
books.google.com. To that end I've written two scripts; the first in sed
to d
On Monday, November 17, 2014 12:57:31 PM UTC-6, porphyry5 wrote:
>
> Is there a method of getting the screen to constantly show the cursor as a
> .vim script progresses?
>
>
It should be doing it anyway, but the :redraw or :redraw! command can often
force it.
--
--
You received this message
On 17.11.14 10:57, Graham Lawrence wrote:
> For my test file the awk program tagged some 3500 words, with 1960 of them
> unique, so this vim script must run within a loop to avoid the tedium and
> 4000 odd keystrokes required to invoke it individually for each unique
> error,
Er, what script loop,
On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 2:37:22 AM UTC-8, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 17.11.14 10:57, Graham Lawrence wrote:
> > For my test file the awk program tagged some 3500 words, with 1960 of them
> > unique, so this vim script must run within a loop to avoid the tedium and
> > 4000 odd keystrokes r
Not much to the point, but I couldn't let this pass:
porphyry5 said:
>... I used a plain numeric index as I figured it must use an address array to
>reference the words array, and with a numeric index I could use a binary
>search pattern to locate the word. I think an associative array must use
On 18.11.14 15:26, porphyry5 wrote:
> I'm not sure how awk organizes arrays internally, but I used a plain
> numeric index as I figured it must use an address array to reference
> the words array, and with a numeric index I could use a binary search
> pattern to locate the word.
That is all unnece
On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:10:08 AM UTC-8, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 18.11.14 15:26, porphyry5 wrote:
> > I'm not sure how awk organizes arrays internally, but I used a plain
> > numeric index as I figured it must use an address array to reference
> > the words array, and with a numeric
On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 11:38:19 PM UTC-8, John Little wrote:
> Not much to the point, but I couldn't let this pass:
> porphyry5 said:
> >... I used a plain numeric index as I figured it must use an address array
> >to reference the words array, and with a numeric index I could use a binary
On 19.11.14 12:21, porphyry5 wrote:
> So if I read this hash table stuff correctly any data item that one
> wants to look up in an associative array generates its own address in
> memory, by using (a constant number of bytes of?) its value as a
> single binary number and modifying that with some ar
On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:04:59 PM UTC-8, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 19.11.14 12:21, porphyry5 wrote:
> > So if I read this hash table stuff correctly any data item that one
> > wants to look up in an associative array generates its own address in
> > memory, by using (a constant number
On 20.11.14 11:54, porphyry5 wrote:
> Annoyingly, I cannot see any clear way to use an associative array in
> this case, because of that pesky word suffix list. I believe 'if
> (word in wd-list)' must either return "no match" or "exact match". In
> the binary search I check for exact matches, on
On Friday, November 21, 2014 1:31:20 AM UTC-8, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 20.11.14 11:54, porphyry5 wrote:
> > Annoyingly, I cannot see any clear way to use an associative array in
> > this case, because of that pesky word suffix list. I believe 'if
> > (word in wd-list)' must either return "no
On 23.11.14 12:01, porphyry5 wrote:
> However I smell a rat, its so astonishingly fast, less than 2 seconds
> vs ~20 seconds for the previous version, and reports only 1050 total
> errors, against more than 3000 total before, though that did include
> good words reported as
On Monday, November 24, 2014 4:05:08 AM UTC-8, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> I am reminded of two quotes:
>
> There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to make
> it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies. And the other way
> is to make it so complicated that there
19 matches
Mail list logo
