woods@ihlpe.ATT.COM (Swan) (11/04/88)
Playing around with vi's tags mechanism, I've discovered that you can use
tags to implement ex-mode (as opposed to vi's input or edit mode) macros.
Yes, they are more line-oriented, instead of character oriented.
Actually, at this stage of the game, "tag macros" are more of an academic
exercise than practical, since I have noted some of the problems (listed
below) associated with using them.
Heres how to create a trial tag macro named trial:
vi the file named "tags" (in the current directory) and enter the following
line:
trial % 5
{^ tabs ^ not spaces}
If the tags file already existed, place this tag in the proper place.
Tags must be kept sorted lexicographically.
If your terminal has programmable function keys, program one of them to
spit out the following:
:ta
{^ one space after the :ta}
Now edit a junk file with several lines in it (more than 5, say).
Press the above function key and type in trial and press RETURN.
vi "switches to" the new file named %, which is expanded to the current
file's name. vi automatically writes the current file EVEN IF AUTOWRITE
IS NOT ON, and performs the ex command, 5, on the "new" file. This
positions vi to line 5 of the file. (Try typing :5<RETURN> from vi some
day.)
Here's a more useful one:
compile % !cc -Oo`basename % .c` % -lPW -lCC
{^ tabs ^ not spaces ^ libraries here}
Now edit a one-file C program. Then press your function key and type
compile and RETURN. Ta dah!
Sometimes the ex command may actually be several commands separated by
vertical bars.
rew % rewind|f|"Go back to first file
PROBLEMS:
1. After writing the old file (even if autowrite was off), it goes to
the first line of the "new" (same) file before executing the ex
command. So your "tag macro" may act on the wrong line.
Apparently % and # expansion are done AFTER it checks to see if the
switched TO filename is the same as the switched FROM file. Since
it thinks they're different, it switches to the "new" file and
positions to line 1.
HACK:
Use the actual current file's name in place of the % in the filename
field. As long as you're already editing that file, using the tag
won't autowrite or go to the first line.
This hack is not the correct solution, because using the actual file
name defeats the purpose of making the "tag macro."
2. Because of #1, if % is used in the filename field, using the "tag
macro" causes % and # (the "alternate" file) to be the same.
In fact, vi sets up both buffers to be the same file. I'm not sure
of all the implications yet, but I know when I use control ` to
return to the previous file, vi actually returns to the place in the
current file where it was before the "tag macro" was used.
Repeatedly using control ` toggles between the two "files" (actually
the same file, but to two different places).
3. The ex command in the second field is executed with nomagic set. If
everything goes OK, vi sets magic back to whatever it was before the
tag was used. However, if the ex command fails, nomagic remains set.
4. Also because of the nomagic, every character that is to be treated as
magic must be backslashed. (s/\.\*/\U\&/ to capitalize a line.)
SOLUTION:
upper % set magic|%s/.*/\U&/
This "tag macro" upper cases the entire file. Nomagic users will find
that it correctly resets nomagic.
5. Now that we understand #4, let's go back to #1. This "tag macro":
upline % set magic|s/.*/\U&/
capitalizes the first line of the current file, rather than the current
line at the time of the :ta upline.
6. This also effect position commands. This "tag macro":
rev % /REV/
Goes to the next line that contains REV in the "new" file. Repeatedly
using the rev tag produces strange results.
There are other problems, some of which I don't even know yet. But...
CONCLUSION:
"Tag macros" can be used for whole-file types of things (such as "compile
this file," or "transform this file"), or for absolute positioning.
Relative positioning commands are currently worthless.
Most of these problems would go away if vi cleared up problem #1. That
is, vi should check to see if the tag is taking it to a new file AFTER
doing % and # expansion.
WHY "TAG MACROS"?
Why am I fiddling with "tag macros" when vi already has a macro feature?
Because these problems exist with the current macros:
A. vi/ex is limited as to how much macro text it allows. Even on the large
processor UNIX(tm) machines I've used, vi sometimes complains that there
is "too much macro text" (or some sort of thing) when I get too eloquent
with my macros. Usually this happens when I've redefined a hairy macro
several times, and leads me to believe that vi doesn't reclaim macro text
space (correctly).
B. multiple character macro names (should/must) start with a special
character, since most of the letters have been used up for editing
purposes. Thus, one could :map #fold ...., but not :map fold ....
("Too dangerous to map that.")
C. One must type macro names (such as #fold) blindly without making a typo.
("Tag macros" can be seen while being typed.) For example, typing
#foid (sic) would cause the next character typed to be treated as a
motion for a pending d command! (I tried this.)
When the #fo was typed, vi still thought it might be the beginning of
the #fold macro. When the i was pressed, instead of l, vi canceled the
macro scan and threw out the i (on my machine). Thus the final d
becomes the first character of a d<motion> command.
Any fellow vi-hackers out there have some solutions? Anyone want to dig
into the vi code to fix problem #1? It might open up a whole new world
to vi users, to further blow away emacs.
Warren D. Swan (WooDS) Y n n ____ __
AT&T Bell Laboratories -(((((([__]_)__]
Naperville, Illinois /o-O-O-O oo oo
ihlpe!woods #####################