Hi Christopher,
You could aggregate your patterns into a single regular expression and use
it directly from BBEdit
with the benefit of result sets, multi-file searches, matches highlighting,
etc.
Here is an unrolled example pattern:
(?xx)
(?i) (?# Case insensitive.)
(?n) (?# No auto capture.)
\b
(
( (?#: Weasel words.)
zzz
|very
|vast
|various
|tiny
|surprisingly
|substantially
|significantly
|several
|remarkably
|relatively
|quite
|mostly
|many
|largely
|interestingly
|huge
|few
|fairly
|extremely
|excellent
|exceedingly
|completely
|clearly
|((are|is) a number)
)
|
( (?#: Passive voices.)
zzz
|wrung
|written
|woven
|wound
|worn
|won
|woken
|withstood
|withheld
|wept
|wed
|upset
|upheld
|understood
|trodden
|torn
|told
|thrust
|thrown
|thrived
|thought
|taught
|taken
|swung
|swum
|sworn
|swollen
|swept
|sunk
|sung
|stunk
|stung
|stuck
|strung
|struck
|striven
|stridden
|stood
|stolen
|spun
|sprung
|spread
|spoken
|split
|spit
|spilt
|spent
|sped
|sown
|sought
|sold
|smitten
|slung
|slit
|slid
|slept
|slain
|shut
|shrunk
|shown
|shot
|shorn
|shone
|shod
|shed
|shaven
|shaken
|sewn
|set
|sent
|seen
|sawn
|sat
|said
|rung
|run
|risen
|ridden
|rid
|read
|quit
|put
|proven
|pled
|paid
|overthrown
|overtaken
|overdone
|overcome
|mown
|mistaken
|misspelt
|met
|meant
|made
|lost
|lighted
|let
|lent
|left
|led
|learnt
|leapt
|lain
|laid
|known
|knit
|knelt
|kept
|hurt
|hung
|hit
|hidden
|held
|heard
|grown
|ground
|gotten
|gone
|given
|frozen
|found
|fought
|forsaken
|forgotten
|forgiven
|foregone
|forbidden
|flung
|flown
|fled
|fit
|felt
|fed
|fallen
|eaten
|dug
|drunk
|driven
|dreamt
|drawn
|done
|dived
|dealt
|cut
|crept
|cost
|come
|clung
|chosen
|caught
|cast
|burst
|burnt
|built
|brought
|broken
|broadcast
|bred
|bound
|bought
|born
|blown
|bled
|bitten
|bidden
|bid
|bet
|beset
|bent
|begun
|been
|become
|beat
|awoken
)
|
(?P<DUPLICATE>\p{L}{2,})\s+(?P=DUPLICATE) (?#: Duplicate words.)
)
\b
HTH
Jean Jourdain
On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 10:40:42 PM UTC+1 Christopher Finazzo
wrote:
> I am consolidating a set of proofreading scripts
> <https://matt.might.net/articles/shell-scripts-for-passive-voice-weasel-words-duplicates/>
>
> into a Makefile that includes a "proof" rule. This rule calls each of the
> underlying scripts - and Aspell <http://aspell.net> - in sequence. At the
> moment, running these will print output to the screen, but I would like to
> go one step further.
>
> As these are "interactive" scripts, which return a text UI when run, is it
> possible to pass the results to bbresults and present matching items in a
> differences window?
>
> The end result would look similar to the following:
>
> proof:
> duplicates.sh
> passive-voice.sh
> weasel-words.sh
> aspell check $document
>
> I have done something similar with a function bbshellcheck, which has the
> following form:
>
> bbshellcheck {
> shellcheck -f gcc "$@" | bbresults
> }
>
> On paper, this makes sense. However, it isn't working exactly as I expect
> -- Is this the wrong approach, or am I missing something obvious?
>
--
This is the BBEdit Talk public discussion group. If you have a feature request
or need technical support, please email "supp...@barebones.com" rather than
posting here. Follow @bbedit on Twitter: <https://twitter.com/bbedit>
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"BBEdit Talk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to bbedit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bbedit/0b6ff504-e585-476c-a5c0-8e25b85b05dbn%40googlegroups.com.
