On 18/12/2011, at 12:55 AM, Sérgio Marques wrote: > One thing that would also be useful is the ability of ignore accelerators. > If one wants to find Open and the word is O~pen, the second won´t appear > on the search. > > This is definitely annoying and contra producing. This feature is a must > have for search function. What do You guys think about it? > > >> I think this is already filed as >> http://bugs.locamotion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=327 ? >> >> >> >> > Hi Rimas > > Yes, I´ve already saw this entry but I think that it´s the opposite. The > title says " Ensure that searching in Pootle *takes accelerators into > account" *(my bold) > > With this title I guess (don´t know for sure) that the accelerator must be > taken in order to achieve results. What I meant was " Ensure that > searching in Pootle *don´t* take accelerators into account" > > So when I write Open, O~pen; Op~en and Ope~n appear in search. Or am I > getting this the wrong way? > -- > Sérgio Marques
Hello pogrep has an option to cope with accelerators, so it should be possible to use that switch in Pootle search too. "takes accelerators into account" probably means use the pogrep switch for accelerators, which does what you want. It does sound ambiguous, I agree. You could try using pogrep directly, as proposed by Olav Dahlum (2011-12-17) in this thread. I tried it and it is useful. Donald -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+h...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/l10n/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
