I want to comment out lines in some code I have. I have different kinds of codes, and they use different comment leaders. E.g. in latex: '%', in Fortran 90: '!' and in python: '#'. I want to do a substitute command that looks something like this:
:g/<search-string>/s/^/<add-comment-leader-here>/
If this is possible, I could also make a command in Vim that automatically commented out the selected text. Something like this:
vmap <z> :'<,'>s/^/<add-comment-leader-here>/
Any ideas are welcome! :)
If you haven't seen it already, you may be interested in the NERD Commenter Vim plugin.
Check out Enhanced Commentify: I think this does what you want: it determines the comment leader based on the file type.
If you want to do it yourself, the easiest way would be to define a mapping that uses exec to build a command and include a variable that is set in your ~/.vim/after/ftplugin/c.vim and other ftplugin files. Alternatively, just add the same mapping (with a different leader) to each ftplugin file.
Related
I am creating custom snippets for flutter/dart. My goal is to pull the file name (TM_FILENAME_BASE) remove all of the underscores and convert it to PascalCase (or camelCase).
Here is a link to what I have learned so far regarding regex and vscode's snippets.
https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/editor/userdefinedsnippets
I have been able to remove the underscores nicely with the following code
${TM_FILENAME_BASE/[\\_]/ /}
I can even make it all caps
${TM_FILENAME_BASE/(.*)/${1:/upcase}/}
However, it seems that I cannot do two steps at a time. I am not familiar with regex, this is just me fiddling around with this for the last couple of days.
If anyone could help out a fellow programmer just trying make coding simpler, it would be really appreciated!
I expect the output of "my_file_name" to be "MyFileName".
It's as easy as that: ${TM_FILENAME_BASE/(.*)/${1:/pascalcase}/}
For the camelCase version you mentioned, you can use:
${TM_FILENAME_BASE/(.*)/${1:/camelcase}/}
Background
This relates to an older stackoverflow question. I was hoping to ask for more details but haven't got the Reputation to write comments yet.
Circumstances are the same: I'm adding codecheck warnings that I want to ignore, by editing the "IgnoredCodeIssues" section of Omnisharp's config.json file.
The question
What wildcard/regexp characters work here and how? Is it perhaps a known standard with its own docs somewhere that I can read?
Example
If I enter an issue warning verbatim it works, but it would be way more efficient to use wildcards. For example this warning:
Method 'Update' has the same with 'Start'
is a warning I don't care about and it's going to pop up a lot. A good solution would be to configure it to work for all instances of this issue, i.e. to use wildcards at the 'Update' and 'Start' parts.
Using a typical regexp it would look like this:
/(Method)\s'\w+'\shas the same with\s'\w+'/g
but that's obviously not the syntax here and would just break the config file. So I'm hoping to understand the particular syntax of wildcards in this particular file.
More details
I use Omnisharp-sublime and Sublime Text 3.
I've read the docs and rummaged around the GitHub page (no links as my reputation is too low for 2+ links) but the only relevant information is an example config file with a couple of ignored issues:
"IgnoredCodeIssues": [
"^Keyword 'private' is redundant. This is the default modifier.$",
".* should not separate words with an underscore.*"
],
EDIT:
Using
"Method '.*.' has the same with.*",
(note the .*.) makes the warnings go away but I have no idea if there are side-effects or other consequences like hiding warnings that I might do want to be notified of. Is there anyone who has seen wildcard expansions like that before? Would be great to be able to look it up and study it before adding more to my config.json
Based on the examples in the config file, you should just use standard regex inside double quotes. Don't use the Perl style of /regex/replace/options. config.json is read by the OmniSharp server, which is written in C#, so if you're looking to do anything fancy with your regexes, make sure they're C#-compatible.
So, for instance, your example regex would look like this:
"(Method)\s'\w+'\shas the same with\s'\w+'"
I'm trying to find the significant differences in C/C++ source code in which only source code changes. I know you can use the git diff -G<regex> but it seems very limiting in the kind of regexes that can be run. For example, it doesn't seem to offer a way to ignore multiline comments in C/C++.
Is there any way in git or preferably libgit2 to ignore comments (including multiline), whitespaces, etc. before a diff is run? Or a way of determining if a line from the diff output is a comment or not?
git diff -w to ignore whitespace differences.
You cannot ignore multiline comments because git is a versioning tool, not a language dependent interpreter. It doesn't know your code is C++. It does not parse files for semantics, so it cannot interpret what is comment and what isn't. In particular, it relies on diff (or a configured difftool) to compare text files and it expects a line-by-line comparison.
I agree with #andrew-c that what you are really asking is to compare the two pieces of code without comments. More specifically helpful, you are asking to compare the lines of code where all multiline comments have been turned into empty lines. You keep the blank lines there so you have the correct line numbers to reference on a normal copy.
So you could manually convert the two code states to blank out multiline comments... or you might look at building your own diff wrapper that did the stripping for you. But the latter is not likely to be worth the effort.
You can achieve this using git attributes and diff filters as described in Viewing git filters output when using meld as a diff tool to call a sed script, which however is pretty complex on its own if you want it to handle all cases like comment delimiters inside string literals etc.
I am writing a long document and I am frequently formatting some terms to italics. After some time I realized that maybe that is now what I want so I would like to remove all the latex commands that format text to italics.
Example:
\textit{Vim} is undoubtedly one of the best editors ever made. \textit{LaTeX} is an extremely powerful, intelligent typesetter. \textbd{Vim-LaTeX} aims at bringing together the best of both these worlds
How can I run a substitution command that recognizes all the instances of \textit{whatever} and changes them to just whatever without affecting different commands such as \textbd{Vim-LaTeX} in this example?
EDIT: As technically the answer that helps is the one from Igor I will mark that one as the correct one. Nevertheless, Konrad's answer should be taken into account as it shows the proper Latex strategy to follow.
You shouldn’t use formatting commands at all in your text.
LaTeX is built around the idea of semantic markup. So instead of saying “this text should be italic” you should mark up the text using its function. For instance:
\product{Vim} is undoubtedly one of the best editors ever made. \product{LaTeX}
is an extremely powerful, intelligent typesetter. \product{Vim-LaTeX} aims at
bringing together the best of both these worlds
… and then, in your preamble, a package, or a document class, you (re-)define a macro \product to set the formatting you want. That way, you can adapt the macro whenever you deem necessary without having to change the code.
Or, if you want to remove the formatting completely, just make the macro display its bare argument:
\newcommand*\product[1]{#1}
Use this substitution command:
% s/\\textit{\([^}]*\)}/\1/
If textit can span muptiple lines:
%! perl -e 'local $/; $_=<>; s/\\textit{([^}]*)}/$1/g; print;'
And you can do this without perl also:
%s/\\textit{\(\_.\{-}\)}/\1/g
Here:
\_. -- any symbol including a newline character
\{-} -- make * non-greedy.
I have looked at the following question:
How to comment out a block of Python code in Vim
But that does not seem to work for me. How do I comment code easily without resorting to plugins/scripts?
Use ctrl-V to do a block selection and then hit I followed by //[ESC].
Alternatively, use shift-V to do a line-based select and then type :s:^://[Enter]. The latter part could easily go into a mapping. eg:
:vmap // :s:^://<CR>
Then you just shift-V, select the range, and type // (or whatever you bind it to).
You can add this to your .vimrc file
map <C-c> :s/^/\/\//<Enter>
Then when you need to comment a section just select all lines (Shift-V + movement) and then press CtrlC.
To un-comment you can define in a similar way
map <C-u> :s/^\/\///<Enter>
that removes a // at begin of line from the selected range when pressing CtrlU.
You can use the NERD commenter plugin for vim, which has support for a whole bunch of languages (I'm sure C++ is one of them). With this installed, to comment/uncomment any line, use <Leader>ci. To do the same for a block of text, select text by entering the visual mode and use the same command as above.
There are other features in this such as comment n lines by supplying a count before the command, yank before comment with <Leader>cy, comment to end of line with <Leader>c$, and many others, which you can read about in the link. I've found this plugin to be extremely useful and is one of my 'must have' plugins.
There's always #ifdef CHECK_THIS_LATER ... #endif which has the advantage of not causing problems with nested C-style comments (if you use them) and is easy to find and either uncomment or remove completely later.