Re: replacing with a newline
- jose isaias cabrera wrote:
>It won't, because adding a "\n" or a ^J in the middle of a line gets
> "A.J.Mechelynck" wrote,
>> Bill McCarthy wrote:
>>> On Sat 27-Jan-07 11:15pm -0600, you wrote:
>>>> Ok, here is a question: Why not keep it the same, \n? Any
>>>> reasoning behind
>>> That could be a way to do it, but that choice wasn't made.
>>> Perhaps someone else could explain why \n means end-of-line
>>> in the pattern, but nul in the substitution, while \r means
>>> ^M in the pattern, but end-of-line in the substitution? And
>>> why not a \x representation for nul in the pattern - instead
>>> of needing to do a ^@?
>>> [Note: ^M is created with ctrl-v following by <enter> and
>>> ^@ is created by ctrl-v followed by 000.]
>> IIUC, NULs are replaced by LF everywhere in Vim memory, because a NUL
>> terminates a C string while a LF is the only ASCII character
>> guaranteed not to exist (in Unix 'fileformat') in the middle of a line
>> (as opposed to at its end). So if lines are stored as C strings,
>> substituting NUL for LF and vice-versa allows representing everything.
>> (Mac 'fileformat' may required some fancy footwork; Dos 'fileformat'
>> is handled by treating either CR+LF or LF as a linebreak on input, and
>> writing all linebreaks as CR+LF on output.)
>> Why not use the same character in "replace by" as in "search for" is
>> harder to explain, though. Maybe part of it is for historical
>> "compatibility" reasons, but it doesn't explain why that choice was
>> made by whoever made it. It may have something to do with the fact
>> that hitting <Enter> at the keyboard generates a CR but is stored (in
>> memory) as a line break then (on file, if in Unix 'fileformat') as a LF.
> One of the things I love about vim is that it makes sense. And I don't
> have to learn or memorize much when things make sense, I just follow the
> logic. But this question, "how do I replace with a newline", I have
> asked about 5 times now. Why? Because I remember most things with vim
> since working with vim makes sense. But this \n vs. \r makes no sense
> to me and I keep forgetting.
> Perhaps, on the next big release, this command would be possible,
> and have commas be replaced by newline.
> Just a thought...
> Thanks for all the replies.
translated into a NUL -- always. It has for as long as Vim has existed and
maybe longer, and you know Bram's standing on upward compatibility (IMHO,
rightly so). It's just one of those "Vim quirks" -- one of the few exceptions
to the systematic rules -- that to count linebreaks by replacing them with
themselves you have to use
It is documented, BTW: under
including the few lines below the latter
...and maybe also elsewhere.