Page 1 of 2
Search with "Whole words only" option should omit @
Posted: Tue May 20, 2014 1:30 pm
by uwekel
Hi,
when searching with the option "Whole words only", function adresses with a @ prefix will not be included in the search results. This is inconvenient when you want to search or replace a function name. The search should omit the @ character from the word characters list.
Best regards
Uwe
Re: Search with "Whole words only" option should omit @
Posted: Tue May 20, 2014 3:06 pm
by Little John
uwekel wrote:The search should omit the @ character from the word characters list.
Yes, it should.
And the asterisk character (*) has the same problem,
already reported a long time ago.
That's why I do not search for whole words in the IDE anymore, it's just unreliable.
Since I realized this problem, I'm using a third party editor for this purpose.
That shouldn't be necessary.
Re: Search with "Whole words only" option should omit @
Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 9:11 am
by PB
Well, the @ and * are part of the "word", so just include them. No biggie.
Re: Search with "Whole words only" option should omit @
Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 9:19 am
by Little John
PB wrote:Well, the @ and * are part of the "word", so just include them. No biggie.
I would also like the world to be that simple ...
Unfortunately, this is not the case.
You might want to read the thread to which I posted the link in my previous post, and then reconsider your statement.
if you include @ or * in the word you are searching for, then the search will not find the respective word without @ or *.
In other words, when I want to reliably search and replace a variable or procedure name, I'll have to do
3 search and replace operations:
- one with
identifier
- one with
@identifier
- one with
*identifier
Not exactly a satisfying solution.
Re: Search with "Whole words only" option should omit @
Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 11:07 am
by PB
> if you include @ or * in the word you are searching for,
> then the search will not find the respective word without @ or *
That's right and perfectly logical, because @ and * are PART OF THE NAME.
Just because those chars are not letters, doesn't mean they can be ignored.
> when I want to reliably search and replace a variable or procedure name,
> I'll have to do 3 search and replace operations
Yep, because you have 3 different and distinct objects (var, pointer, procedure).
Re: Search with "Whole words only" option should omit @
Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 11:11 am
by uwekel
PB, i agree with the asterix *, but the @ is just an address operator to the following attached variable or function.
Re: Search with "Whole words only" option should omit @
Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 11:15 am
by TI-994A
PB wrote:...@ and * are PART OF THE NAME...
...3 different and distinct objects (var, pointer, procedure).
Hi PB. With all due respect, the
@ is technically not part of the variable or procedure name.
Re: Search with "Whole words only" option should omit @
Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 11:28 am
by Little John
uwekel wrote:PB, i agree with the asterix * [...]
Unfortunately, I can not agree:
TI-994A wrote:the
@ is technically not part of the variable or procedure name.
Agreed.
Obviously, both * and @ are
not (necessarily) part of an identifier name.
Re: Search with "Whole words only" option should omit @
Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 11:32 am
by uwekel
I meant if the asterix belongs to a pointer variable.
Re: Search with "Whole words only" option should omit @
Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 11:37 am
by Little John
uwekel wrote:I meant if the asterix belongs to a pointer variable.
Yes, of course.
I know.
Humans and the compiler can make this distinction.
But the search function of the IDE doesn't know whether an asterisk belongs to a pointer variable, or whether it means "multiply".
That's part of the problem.
Re: Search with "Whole words only" option should omit @
Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 11:47 am
by PB
BTW, the only reason I'm opposed to this, is because it may
lead to something getting replaced that shouldn't. When you
include the @ or * then this risk is totally removed.
Re: Search with "Whole words only" option should omit @
Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 12:08 pm
by Little John
PB wrote:it may lead to something getting replaced that shouldn't.
What, for instance?
Re: Search with "Whole words only" option should omit @
Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 12:10 pm
by TI-994A
Little John wrote:...both * and @ are not (necessarily) part of an identifier name.
Little John wrote:...the search function of the IDE doesn't know whether an asterisk belongs to a pointer variable, or whether it means "multiply"...
Operators and address references never form any
part of an identifier. But insofar as the search & replace is concerned, perhaps. That is why best practices recommend leaving spaces between variables and operators.
PB wrote:...When you include the @ or * then this risk is totally removed.
It would be even riskier to rename a reference to an identifier and not rename the identifier itself.
Re: Search with "Whole words only" option should omit @
Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 12:42 pm
by Little John
TI-994A wrote:Operators and address references never form any part of an identifier.
Yes, that's true. I can't see where I wrote anything different.
What obviously adds to the confusion here is, that the asterisk * can play both the role of an operator, and the role of a part of an identifier (pointer variable).
TI-994A wrote:[...] best practices recommend leaving spaces between variables and operators.
Yep!
That's exactly what I'm doing when writing new PB code.
However, there are not always spaces between variables and operators in my old code, let alone code which I copied e.g. from this forum.
And this will not solve the problem with @ ...
Re: Search with "Whole words only" option should omit @
Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 3:40 pm
by Tenaja
Little John wrote:
In other words, when I want to reliably search and replace a variable or procedure name, I'll have to do 3 search and replace operations:
- one with identifier
- one with @identifier
- one with *identifier
Not exactly a satisfying solution.
This is one of the major reasons I
always place spaces around every operator. Even the @ operator allows a space, as wrong as it looks.