On Sun, 2003-01-26 at 03:35, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> On 21:27 14 Jan 2003, Bret Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Am I close? this is more flexible than trying to build a regex that
> | would do the same thing in the syntax I have used in the past. I never
> | have sucessfully atomized letter combinations so I can use ? as a
> | conditional. At least I don't think I have but I remember trying.
> |
> | I remember trying something like (from memory only)
> |
> | %s/({bah.*}?)(this)({.*bah}?)/$1that$3/g
>
> That'd do every line because the "...bah...?" is optional, so even lines with
> no bah will match.
Aha. That sounds familiar. I wonder if that is the reason I never could
get it to work. Thanks to you and Robert for the addition to my tool
kit. I don't do a great deal of stuff like this in vi, maybe because I
could never figure out how to do it. It will be interesting to see if
it comes up.
>
> | the g/foo/ one I am going to have to read up on before beginning to ask
> | a question about it :)
>
> Thinks of it like a pre-grep for the target lines.
>
Yeah I get the g/foo/ part it is the .-2,.+2m0 that looks like gibberish
to me :)
BTW does this g/foo s/BLAH/blah/g syntax extend to tools other than vi?
I can;t really think of where it would apply but I thought I would ask.
Bret
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
