On 21-Aug-08 16:15, Robert Webb wrote:
> Ag. D. Hatzimanikas:
>
>>> I could also use readfile(), which would probably suffice, but is this
>>> more or less efficient than loading a file into a vim buffer. I will
>>> still need to read the whole file either way since I don't know how
>>> far through the file I will need to look.
>>>
>>> Now if there was a searchfile() function, that would be handy :-)
>> Here is a result of your thoughts.
>>
>> function! Searchfile(file, pattern, ...)
>> if exists("a:1")
>> let matchlimit = a:1
>> else
>> let matchlimit = 1
>> endif
>> let list = []
>> let matches = 0
>> for line in readfile(a:file)
>> if match(line, a:pattern) != -1
>> call add(list, line)
>> let matches += 1
>> if matches == matchlimit
>> break
>> endif
>> endif
>> endfor
>> return list
>> endfunction
>
> Oh, that's interesting, particularly the "for line in readfile()"
> construct. I would be scared that readfile() is then carried out every
> time around the loop! Or maybe vim is optimised to only read one line at a
> time this way. Anyone know? If it just reads the file once at the start of
> the loop then this Searchfile() function isn't any more efficient than
> readfile(). My point was that it would be nice to have a function that
> doesn't read the whole file if it doesn't have to, but then maybe that's
> what this for-construct does?
readfile() reads the entire file into a list in memory _once_, then :for
processes the list item by item. You can limit the number of lines read by
readfile(), cp. :help readfile().
-- regards, ingo
/^-- Ingo Karkat -- /^-- /^-- /^-- /^-- /^-- /^-- http://ingo-karkat.de/ --
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
