From alanr-l at mumble.net Wed Dec 8 20:08:16 2004 From: alanr-l at mumble.net (Alan Ruttenberg) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 15:08:16 -0500 Subject: [regex-coach] bug in os x regex coach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for this - looks quite useful! Just downloaded and was about to explore a regex I am working on. [+*]\d+ gives the notice "Unknown token FAKE-ENTRY in parse tree" The target string is "+100929 asd;askjd;;" BTW, various emacs key bindings don't work - arrows, control-[bfpn] and copy and paste are not available. Thanks again, Alan From edi at agharta.de Wed Dec 8 20:54:39 2004 From: edi at agharta.de (Edi Weitz) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 21:54:39 +0100 Subject: [regex-coach] bug in os x regex coach In-Reply-To: (Alan Ruttenberg's message of "Wed, 8 Dec 2004 15:08:16 -0500") References: Message-ID: Hi! On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 15:08:16 -0500, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > Thanks for this - looks quite useful! Just downloaded and was about > to explore a regex I am working on. > > [+*]\d+ > > gives the notice "Unknown token FAKE-ENTRY in parse tree" > > The target string is "+100929 asd;askjd;;" Yes, see here: The problem is that porting this app to OS X turned out to be much more complicated than I though it would be. While CAPI applications are generally very easy to port between Windows, Linux, and OS X, this one exposes particular problems because of the OS X threading model. You can search the LispWorks mailing list on gmane.org if you want more details. I don't have enough time and energy to do more work on the OS X port but another LispWorks developer who has a Mac license has offered to help once he has some spare time. Keep your fingers crossed - you /might/ see a working Mac version in January or February. > BTW, various emacs key bindings don't work - arrows, control-[bfpn] > and copy and paste are not available. Yes, but these issues should be easy to fix. Cheers, Edi. From edi at agharta.de Tue Dec 28 09:14:08 2004 From: edi at agharta.de (Edi Weitz) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:14:08 +0100 Subject: [regex-coach] Re: Your Regular Expressions software In-Reply-To: <004301c4ebd6$a26d0940$0200a8c0@cgisys> (Jeff ADA's message of "Mon, 27 Dec 2004 00:40:54 -0500") References: <004301c4ebd6$a26d0940$0200a8c0@cgisys> Message-ID: Hi! On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 00:40:54 -0500, "Jeff ADA" wrote: > I just downloaded your "regular expressions" software. I love the > concept! Please notify me after you've made your next major update. New releases will be announced on the mailing list (see Cc) which should also be used for bug reports and suggestions. > 1. I'm using PHP and they have a separate function for multiple > matches of the same pattern. Something like that would be useful as > an option. Well, you already have multiple matches, kind of - see the scan buttons, the split pane and the 'g' modifier. > 2. When multiple matches occur it would be useful to highlight each > match in a different color. With one pattern that matches 6 times > the first five were in yellow and the last one was in orange. I had > specified {2,6}. This is something that others have also suggested and it's likely to be in one of the next releases. > 3. The relative sizes of the four text-areas used should be able to > be dynamically changed by moving their top or bottom lines up or > down. For example, I wanted to see multiple lines of the match > process when I only had a single line of pattern. And, I didn't > really need to see the text being matched (2nd area) since that's > what I was following in the 4th area. All text panes can be resized: > This and the next point combined are probably why I wouldn't use > your wonderful tool every day - and be happy to pay you for it! I don't think enough people would pay for this application to warrant investing more time in it. I had more than 100,000 downloads so far and seven (7) of those who downloaded made a donation to PayPal. Go figure... :) > 4. There needs to be something other than just a checkbox for > verbose. Something like #operations, #characters, #lines or > something that lets me skip a bunch of checks until I get to the > point of wanting to see a certain part of the input being matched by > the pattern. I had to click more than 400 times and then I > discovered my pattern was working all along and the input text I > gave you was not the same input as I was using. I'll keep that suggestion in mind but the stepper (and the whole matching process) is a little bit more complicated and doesn't lend itself very well to simple linear counting like "number of characters" or such. Thanks for your feedback. Happy New Year, Edi.