Quantcast

Filter-like command -- but to insert instead of replacing

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Filter-like command -- but to insert instead of replacing

Sylvain Leroux
Hello Vim users,

I finally decided to post here as I can't find the solution by myself. I'm looking for a way to use some range of the buffer as input to an external command, and *inserting* the command output into the buffer.

I'm aware of the `!` command but it doesn't match my need as it *replaces* the original data. I want to keep them. The `r!` command doesn't match either as (AFAIK) you cannot send data from the buffer as input to the command.

To make things more clear here is a typical use case
(I use the `wc` command for illustration purpose only):

== Original buffer ==============
Mar 2016    1.78%
Apr 2016    1.65%
May 2016    1.79%
Jun 2016    2.02%
Jul 2016    2.33%

Linux Market Share on Desktop
=================================

== Command (??? denotes the mystery command I'm looking for)
:1,/^$/-1 ??? wc -l

== Expected buffer ==============
5
Mar 2016    1.78%
Apr 2016    1.65%
May 2016    1.79%
Jun 2016    2.02%
Jul 2016    2.33%

Linux Market Share on Desktop
=================================


Any idea on how to achieve that? If there isn't any Vim command to do that directly, maybe using a register? As you can see, any help or pointer to the right direction would be greatly appreciated.

Best regards,
- Sylvain

--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Filter-like command -- but to insert instead of replacing

Bram Moolenaar

Sylvain Leroux wrote:

> I finally decided to post here as I can't find the solution by myself.
> I'm looking for a way to use some range of the buffer as input to an
> external command, and *inserting* the command output into the buffer.
>
> I'm aware of the `!` command but it doesn't match my need as it
> *replaces* the original data. I want to keep them. The `r!` command
> doesn't match either as (AFAIK) you cannot send data from the buffer
> as input to the command.
>
> To make things more clear here is a typical use case
> (I use the `wc` command for illustration purpose only):
>
> == Original buffer ==============
> Mar 2016    1.78%
> Apr 2016    1.65%
> May 2016    1.79%
> Jun 2016    2.02%
> Jul 2016    2.33%
>
> Linux Market Share on Desktop
> =================================
>
> == Command (??? denotes the mystery command I'm looking for)
> :1,/^$/-1 ??? wc -l
>
> == Expected buffer ==============
> 5
> Mar 2016    1.78%
> Apr 2016    1.65%
> May 2016    1.79%
> Jun 2016    2.02%
> Jul 2016    2.33%
> Mar 2016    1.78%
> Apr 2016    1.65%
> May 2016    1.79%
> Jun 2016    2.02%
> Jul 2016    2.33%
>
> Linux Market Share on Desktop
> =================================
>
>
> Any idea on how to achieve that? If there isn't any Vim command to do
> that directly, maybe using a register? As you can see, any help or
> pointer to the right direction would be greatly appreciated.

I don't think it can be done with one command.  Simplest seems to be to
copy the text and then filter it.
        (visually select the text)
        YP
        gv
        :!filter-command

Would not be a bad idea to have an Ex command for this.  Not sure what
to call it, :feed perhaps?  :writeread ?

--
An SQL statement walks into a bar.  He approaches two tables
and says, "Mind if I join you?"

 /// Bram Moolenaar -- [hidden email] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net   \\\
///        sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
\\\  an exciting new programming language -- http://www.Zimbu.org        ///
 \\\            help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org    ///

--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Filter-like command -- but to insert instead of replacing

'Suresh Govindachar' via vim_use
Hi list,

On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 04:06:34PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> Would not be a bad idea to have an Ex command for this.  Not sure what
> to call it, :feed perhaps?  :writeread ?

why not implementing it as a command that pipes the selection into the
command, and pipes the output into a register? Then one could control
where and how to paste it.

Cheers,

--
Guyzmo

--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Filter-like command -- but to insert instead of replacing

Sylvain Leroux
In reply to this post by Bram Moolenaar
Thank you for your reply Bram,
And more generally thank you for your great work & continuous
involvement with Vim.


Some comments inline:

On 02/09/2017 04:06 PM, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> I don't think it can be done with one command. Simplest seems to be to
> copy the text and then filter it.
> (visually select the text)
> YP
> gv
> :!filter-command

I was out of idea when I posted yesterday, but there is indeed a simple
workaround at least on some Unix-like systems:

:{range}! tee >(wc -l)

But I agree a more generic/cross-platform solution would be better.

> Would not be a bad idea to have an Ex command for this.  Not sure what
> to call it, :feed perhaps?  :writeread ?
>

For a really generic solution, the command should support a source range
and a destination range-or-address. At some point while experimenting I
thought there could be an option to the `!r` command.

Here is what I had in mind:

:{range-1}r[read]>[range-2] !{filter}

But, as you suggested, we may envision some new `feed` command instead:

:{range-1}fee[d][range-2] !{filter}

{range-1} is the destination range as specified for the `read` command.
[range-2] is the source range whose content is written on {filter} input
stream. [range-2] is optional and is equal to {range-1} if not specified.


What do you think of that?

--
-- Sylvain Leroux
-- [hidden email]
-- http://www.chicoree.fr


--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Filter-like command -- but to insert instead of replacing

Justin M. Keyes
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Sylvain Leroux <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thank you for your reply Bram,
> And more generally thank you for your great work & continuous
> involvement with Vim.
>
>
> Some comments inline:
>
> On 02/09/2017 04:06 PM, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
>> I don't think it can be done with one command. Simplest seems to be to
>> copy the text and then filter it.
>>       (visually select the text)
>>       YP
>>       gv
>>       :!filter-command
>
> I was out of idea when I posted yesterday, but there is indeed a simple
> workaround at least on some Unix-like systems:
>
> :{range}! tee >(wc -l)
>
> But I agree a more generic/cross-platform solution would be better.
>
>> Would not be a bad idea to have an Ex command for this.  Not sure what
>> to call it, :feed perhaps?  :writeread ?
>>
>
> For a really generic solution, the command should support a source range
> and a destination range-or-address. At some point while experimenting I
> thought there could be an option to the `!r` command.
>
> Here is what I had in mind:
>
> :{range-1}r[read]>[range-2] !{filter}
>
> But, as you suggested, we may envision some new `feed` command instead:
>
> :{range-1}fee[d][range-2] !{filter}
>
> {range-1} is the destination range as specified for the `read` command.
> [range-2] is the source range whose content is written on {filter} input
> stream. [range-2] is optional and is equal to {range-1} if not specified.
>
>
> What do you think of that?

I would really prefer some variation or enhancement to :! or :read
rather than *yet another* narrow, special-purpose command (:feed,
:writeread) with no discoverability or intuitive nature.

Usability takes thought and deliberation. Every time someone asks for
a random feature the solution should not be "let's add a new
:dothisonething command". And yes, the usable/intuitive approach might
take more work.

---
Justin M. Keyes

--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Filter-like command -- but to insert instead of replacing

arocker

> Usability takes thought and deliberation. Every time someone asks for
> a random feature the solution should not be "let's add a new
> :dothisonething command".

Agreed. The approach should be "What is the general case, of which this is
a particular example?". Then you only have to solve the class of problem
once, instead of every time someone comes up with a variation, and the
user only has to learn one rule.

--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Filter-like command -- but to insert instead of replacing

Gary Johnson-4
In reply to this post by Justin M. Keyes
On 2017-02-09, Justin M. Keyes wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Sylvain Leroux <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Thank you for your reply Bram,
> > And more generally thank you for your great work & continuous
> > involvement with Vim.
> >
> >
> > Some comments inline:
> >
> > On 02/09/2017 04:06 PM, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> >> I don't think it can be done with one command. Simplest seems to be to
> >> copy the text and then filter it.
> >>       (visually select the text)
> >>       YP
> >>       gv
> >>       :!filter-command
> >
> > I was out of idea when I posted yesterday, but there is indeed a simple
> > workaround at least on some Unix-like systems:
> >
> > :{range}! tee >(wc -l)
> >
> > But I agree a more generic/cross-platform solution would be better.
> >
> >> Would not be a bad idea to have an Ex command for this.  Not sure what
> >> to call it, :feed perhaps?  :writeread ?
> >>
> >
> > For a really generic solution, the command should support a source range
> > and a destination range-or-address. At some point while experimenting I
> > thought there could be an option to the `!r` command.
> >
> > Here is what I had in mind:
> >
> > :{range-1}r[read]>[range-2] !{filter}
> >
> > But, as you suggested, we may envision some new `feed` command instead:
> >
> > :{range-1}fee[d][range-2] !{filter}
> >
> > {range-1} is the destination range as specified for the `read` command.
> > [range-2] is the source range whose content is written on {filter} input
> > stream. [range-2] is optional and is equal to {range-1} if not specified.
> >
> >
> > What do you think of that?
>
> I would really prefer some variation or enhancement to :! or :read
> rather than *yet another* narrow, special-purpose command (:feed,
> :writeread) with no discoverability or intuitive nature.
>
> Usability takes thought and deliberation. Every time someone asks for
> a random feature the solution should not be "let's add a new
> :dothisonething command". And yes, the usable/intuitive approach might
> take more work.

Excellent point.  I'll try to find time today to contribute more
than enthusiasm.

Regards,
Gary

--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Filter-like command -- but to insert instead of replacing

Sylvain Leroux
In reply to this post by Justin M. Keyes
>
> I would really prefer some variation or enhancement to :! or :read
> rather than *yet another* narrow, special-purpose command (:feed,
> :writeread) with no discoverability or intuitive nature.
>
> ---
> Justin M. Keyes

FWIW, :! and :read has a different semantic regarding the {range}

:! *replace* the initial range
:read *append* after the initial range

In that respect, a general solution to my initial question would me more in the spirit of a variation or enhancement to :read.

--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Filter-like command -- but to insert instead of replacing

Tim Chase
In reply to this post by Bram Moolenaar
On 2017-02-09 16:06, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> I don't think it can be done with one command.  Simplest seems to
> be to copy the text and then filter it.
> (visually select the text)
> YP
> gv
> :!filter-command
>
> Would not be a bad idea to have an Ex command for this.  Not sure
> what to call it, :feed perhaps?  :writeread ?

With three input parameters (source range, destination location, and
command to execute), I'm unaware of anything that currently does
this.  Fortunately, copying should also set the '[ and '] marks, so
something similar to the above would work even in builds without
visual mode:

  :{range}t{destination}
  :'[,']!{filter-command}

If it's limited to putting input at a given line, I'd want/expect the
full power of ex range/line specifiers, allowing for complex offsets
like

  :{range}cmd?^TABLE OF CONTENTS$?+1 {filter-command}

(such as :t and :m allow for targets)

That said, it's not that hard to use the pair of commands above (or
map it or make a :command), so I don't see a great need for a new
built-in to do the same.

-tkc


--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Filter-like command -- but to insert instead of replacing

Bram Moolenaar

Tim Chase wrote:

> On 2017-02-09 16:06, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> > I don't think it can be done with one command.  Simplest seems to
> > be to copy the text and then filter it.
> > (visually select the text)
> > YP
> > gv
> > :!filter-command
> >
> > Would not be a bad idea to have an Ex command for this.  Not sure
> > what to call it, :feed perhaps?  :writeread ?
>
> With three input parameters (source range, destination location, and
> command to execute), I'm unaware of anything that currently does
> this.

The :move and :copy command do have a range and a destination address.
We should follow that syntax, and put a command at the end.

> Fortunately, copying should also set the '[ and '] marks, so
> something similar to the above would work even in builds without
> visual mode:
>
>   :{range}t{destination}
>   :'[,']!{filter-command}
>
> If it's limited to putting input at a given line, I'd want/expect the
> full power of ex range/line specifiers, allowing for complex offsets
> like
>
>   :{range}cmd?^TABLE OF CONTENTS$?+1 {filter-command}
>
> (such as :t and :m allow for targets)
>
> That said, it's not that hard to use the pair of commands above (or
> map it or make a :command), so I don't see a great need for a new
> built-in to do the same.

Perhaps this will work:
        :{range}copy {address} !cmd

It's like making a copy, but filtering the text.

--
Clothes make the man.  Naked people have little or no influence on society.
                               -- Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) (1835-1910)

 /// Bram Moolenaar -- [hidden email] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net   \\\
///        sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
\\\  an exciting new programming language -- http://www.Zimbu.org        ///
 \\\            help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org    ///

--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Filter-like command -- but to insert instead of replacing

Sylvain Leroux
On 02/11/2017 11:37 AM, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> Perhaps this will work:
> :{range}copy {address} !cmd
>

As a mere user this seems perfectly OK (I like the idea of copying
_through_ a filter)

But in that case, to ease discoverability, I suggest adding a reference
to that in the help for :! and/or :read as probably most people would do
just like me and search there first.

--
-- Sylvain Leroux
-- [hidden email]
-- http://www.chicoree.fr


--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

signature.asc (879 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Filter-like command -- but to insert instead of replacing

Arun Easi-2
In reply to this post by Bram Moolenaar
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Bram Moolenaar <[hidden email]> wrote:

Tim Chase wrote:

> On 2017-02-09 16:06, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> > I don't think it can be done with one command.  Simplest seems to
> > be to copy the text and then filter it.
> >     (visually select the text)
> >     YP
> >     gv
> >     :!filter-command
> >
> > Would not be a bad idea to have an Ex command for this.  Not sure
> > what to call it, :feed perhaps?  :writeread ?
>
> With three input parameters (source range, destination location, and
> command to execute), I'm unaware of anything that currently does
> this.

The :move and :copy command do have a range and a destination address.
We should follow that syntax, and put a command at the end.

> Fortunately, copying should also set the '[ and '] marks, so
> something similar to the above would work even in builds without
> visual mode:
>
>   :{range}t{destination}
>   :'[,']!{filter-command}
>
> If it's limited to putting input at a given line, I'd want/expect the
> full power of ex range/line specifiers, allowing for complex offsets
> like
>
>   :{range}cmd?^TABLE OF CONTENTS$?+1 {filter-command}
>
> (such as :t and :m allow for targets)
>
> That said, it's not that hard to use the pair of commands above (or
> map it or make a :command), so I don't see a great need for a new
> built-in to do the same.

Perhaps this will work:
        :{range}copy {address} !cmd

Just wondering how this would work with :g, hope it wont be executing the filter against each line, rather as a whole. It would be useful to have a set of lines selected using :g applied against a filter. If the output of the filtered command be captured to a register (or to a destination line, like copy), that would be awesome. Maybe, :g, is not the right command to use, but something like that would be useful, IMHO.

Regards,
-Arun 

It's like making a copy, but filtering the text.

--
Clothes make the man.  Naked people have little or no influence on society.
                               -- Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) (1835-1910)

 /// Bram Moolenaar -- [hidden email] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net   \\\
///        sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
\\\  an exciting new programming language -- http://www.Zimbu.org        ///
 \\\            help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org    ///

--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Filter-like command -- but to insert instead of replacing

Tim Chase
On 2017-02-11 11:26, Arun wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
>> Perhaps this will work:
>>         :{range}copy {address} !cmd
>>
>
> Just wondering how this would work with :g, hope it wont be
> executing the filter against each line, rather as a whole. It would
> be useful to have a set of lines selected using :g applied against
> a filter. If the output of the filtered command be captured to a
> register (or to a destination line, like copy), that would be
> awesome. Maybe, :g, is not the right command to use, but something
> like that would be useful, IMHO.

The syntax of the :g command allows you to specify ranges for the
subsequent ex commands.  So you can do things like

  :g/pattern/-3,+5t$

to find all the lines matching "pattern" and copy it along with 3
lines of context before and 5 lines of context after to the bottom of
the file.

So with Bram's proposal,

  :g/pattern/copy {address} !cmd

would run "cmd" for each matching line.  But if each /pattern/
finds something within a block you want to process together, you
would be able to do

  :g/pattern/-3,+5copy {address} !cmd

It would still run "cmd" once for every /pattern/, but it wouldn't run
it 9 times for every pattern (3 before + 1 current + 5 after) in this
example.

-tim








--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Filter-like command -- but to insert instead of replacing

Arun Easi-2
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Tim Chase <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 2017-02-11 11:26, Arun wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
>> Perhaps this will work:
>>         :{range}copy {address} !cmd
>>
>
> Just wondering how this would work with :g, hope it wont be
> executing the filter against each line, rather as a whole. It would
> be useful to have a set of lines selected using :g applied against
> a filter. If the output of the filtered command be captured to a
> register (or to a destination line, like copy), that would be
> awesome. Maybe, :g, is not the right command to use, but something
> like that would be useful, IMHO.

The syntax of the :g command allows you to specify ranges for the
subsequent ex commands.  So you can do things like

  :g/pattern/-3,+5t$

to find all the lines matching "pattern" and copy it along with 3
lines of context before and 5 lines of context after to the bottom of
the file.

So with Bram's proposal,

  :g/pattern/copy {address} !cmd

would run "cmd" for each matching line.  But if each /pattern/
finds something within a block you want to process together, you
would be able to do

  :g/pattern/-3,+5copy {address} !cmd

It would still run "cmd" once for every /pattern/, but it wouldn't run
it 9 times for every pattern (3 before + 1 current + 5 after) in this
example.

True, I understand the :g behavior; but was wondering how a group of lines matching a pattern could be fed to the filter in one go, unlike the :g way. The current proposed way would work fine with simple consecutive lines, but would be nice to extend with patterns too. Just a wish.

Regards,
-Arun 

--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Loading...