after.rs

/// Literal strings translate to slices into static memory.  This is different from
/// trans_slice_vstore() above because it doesn't need to copy the content anywhere.
pub fn trans_lit_str<'blk, 'tcx>(bcx: Block<'blk, 'tcx>,
                                 lit_expr: &ast::Expr,
                                 str_lit: InternedString,
                                 dest: Dest)
                                 -> Block<'blk, 'tcx> {
    debug!("trans_lit_str(lit_expr={}, dest={})",

before.rs

pub fn trans_lit_str<'blk, 'tcx>(bcx: Block<'blk, 'tcx>,
                                 lit_expr: &ast::Expr,
                                 str_lit: InternedString,
                                 dest: Dest)
                                 -> Block<'blk, 'tcx> {
    /*!
     * Literal strings translate to slices into static memory.  This is
     * different from trans_slice_vstore() above because it doesn't need to copy
     * the content anywhere.
     */

    debug!("trans_lit_str(lit_expr={}, dest={})",

notes.txt

right now, mostly killing the extra whitespace myself, moving it up, and using visual block to change things

the function isn't guaranteed to be left aligned, it may be indented

The reformatting of the comment is just `V(move)gq`

qc/\/\/\/<cr>v/^pub<cr>kd/{$<cr>p+lvlc*!<esc>+<ctrl-v>/^ +[^\/]<cr>kmellc *<esc><backtick>elli/<esc>q or something like that, for a macro named c.

@espadrine thanks! Now to look at all those chunks and grok them... :)

My muscle memory suggests:

Cursor inside the comment block:

?^\s*\/\/*<enter>  
v
/^\s*\*\/<enter>
:s!\^\(\s*\)\*!\1///!
:'<dd
:'>dd
gv
D
?\<fn\>
]P
k
'[gq

Something like that anyway. When you're building the actual macro, I always like "ap "ad$ (assuming macro is in register a)

I think @espadrine and my suggestions do converse things - his takes the /// comment and makes it a /*, mine might do the reverse. He does include the qc to create the actual macro - I always need to do the edit a few times by hand before I want to do that.

@nyarly yeah, that seems about right. it is /* -> /// that I want, . regardless, thank you! time to dig in...