Re: BBEdit 13: Please, improvements instead of gimmicks

['Tom' via BBEdit Talk]

Reading your change notes would just spoil the exalting moments of 
surprise, like this one ;-)

– Tom

On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 7:48:00 PM UTC+2, Rich Siegel wrote:
>
> On 10/11/19 at 12:32 PM, bbe...@googlegroups.com  ('Tom' via 
> BBEdit Talk) 
> wrote: 
>
> >To my (positive) surprise, I just noticed that option-selecting now 
> >works also in soft-wrapping mode. If I recall correctly, this wasn’t 
> >the case some time ago. 
>
> I can see how you might miss some surprising things if you 
> didn't read much past the first change or two in the notes. >:-) 
>
> R. 
> -- 
> Rich Siegel Bare Bones Software, Inc. 
> >  <
> http://www.barebones.com/> 
>
> Someday I'll look back on all this and laugh... until they 
> sedate me. 
>
>

-- 
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 to the group.
Follow @bbedit on Twitter: 
--- 
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/b0fbd0b2-86ea-4fba-b2b7-32c6757b9948%40googlegroups.com.

Re: BBEdit 13: Please, improvements instead of gimmicks

[Rich Siegel]

On 10/11/19 at 12:32 PM, bbedit@googlegroups.com ('Tom' via 
BBEdit Talk)

wrote:


To my (positive) surprise, I just noticed that option-selecting now
works also in soft-wrapping mode. If I recall correctly, this wasn’t
the case some time ago.


I can see how you might miss some surprising things if you 
didn't read much past the first change or two in the notes. >:-)


R.
--
Rich Siegel Bare Bones Software, Inc.
  

Someday I'll look back on all this and laugh... until they 
sedate me.


--
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 to the group.
Follow @bbedit on Twitter: 
--- 
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/r480Ps-10146i-B9324E325841400096663D5465F06A58%40Stormwind.local.

Re: BBEdit 13: Please, improvements instead of gimmicks

['Tom' via BBEdit Talk]

Sometimes it’s “just” this: 

- Selecting a couple of (non-contiguous) lines or sentences
- Selecting only parts of a sentence
- Removing some elements from a selection  

If you are working with prose or markup text (e.g. TeX, HTML), this happens 
quite often.

Of course, the absence of non-contiguous selections is not a game breaker, 
since you can always achieve what you want by other means. It’s a 
quality-of-life thingy. But ten years ago I would never have thought that 
this still will be an issue with BBEdit in 2019…

To my (positive) surprise, I just noticed that option-selecting now works 
also in soft-wrapping mode. If I recall correctly, this wasn’t the case 
some time ago.

– Tom


On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 5:34:15 PM UTC+2, Sam Hathaway wrote:
>
> I don’t really know how to articulate this.
>
> Maybe: opening the dialog box breaks flow.
>
> Or: it feels more *natural* to do this with multiple selections.
>
> In a sense, it’s more of a “direct manipulation” than using the 
> find/replace tool.
>
> Also: selecting a large range of text (a complete function, including the 
> prototype, etc.) is often awkward, requiring use of the mouse or a lot of 
> fiddling with arrow keys. The multiple selection workflow is completely 
> keyboard-based.
>
> I’m not disputing that there may be ways to achieve the same goal in 
> BBEdit currently. My claim is that multiple selection has advantages over 
> the current methods.
>
> Hope this helps.
> -sam
>
> On 11 Oct 2019, at 10:58, bruce linde wrote:
>
> wait… 
>
> 1. select your ‘want to change things in this block of text’ section.
>
> 2. set your ‘find ’ text and your ‘replace with __’ text
>
> 3. check the ‘search and replace in selected text only’ checkbox.
>
> unless i’m missing something?
>
> bruce
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 11, 2019, at 7:48 AM, Sam Hathaway  > wrote:
>
> On October 11, 2019 3:26:56 AM Gustave Stresen-Reuter tedmas...@gmail.com 
>  wrote:
>
> What else would you use discontiguous selections for (serious question)?
>
> Lack of multiple selection is one of several things that make me jealous 
> of VSCode/Atom/SublimeText users. In one of those editors, I would change 
> the types of some variables in a struct like this:
>
>- select a word (say, uint16_t) 
>- hit a key combo to also select the next instance of the selected word 
>- and the next one 
>- and the next one 
>- ok, I've selected all the instances of uint16_t in this struct that 
>I want to change 
>- type: uint32_t 
>
> This is different from editing *all* instance of some text. If I’m 
> changing a few variables in one struct from being 16-bit to 32-bit, that 
> doesn’t mean I want to change every single uint16_t in the file.
>
> I can get close with current BBEdit like this:
>
>- select a word (say, uint16_t) 
>- hit Cmd-E (to set find text) 
>- type: uint32_t 
>- hit Opt-Shift-Left to select the word I just typed 
>- hit Cmd-Opt-E (to set replace text) 
>- hit Cmd-G 
>- hit Cmd-T 
>- hit Cmd-T 
>- hit Cmd-T 
>
> This is… okay… I guess… but the keyboard acrobatics are a little stressful 
> on my fingers, and I don’t like that I have to enter the replacement text 
> first, before selecting all the instances that I want to change. It’s 
> conceptually cleaner for me to “grab” all the text I want to change, and 
> then change it all at once.
>
> If all the words I want to change are on adjacent lines and lined up 
> vertically, I can use a rectangular selection and this works pretty well 
> (as long as I remember to use Cmd-Z rather than Backspace if I make a 
> mistake). I wish I could do this even when things are not lined up nicely.
>
> Does that make sense?
> -sam
>
> On 11 Oct 2019, at 3:26, Gustave Stresen-Reuter wrote:
>
> Not sure if this is what you want but you can edit all instances of found 
> text. Not at my computer so can't consult the docs but it is possible.
>
> What else would you use discontiguous selections for (serious question)?
>
> Ted
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 3:45 AM Tom Robinson  > wrote:
>
>> See the ungimmicky footer of every message to this group:
>>
>> > If you have a 
>> > feature request or need technical support, please email
>> > "sup...@barebones.com " rather than posting to the group.
>>
>>
>> > On 2019-10-11, at 14:20, 'Tom' via BBEdit Talk > > wrote:
>> > 
>> > Hey guys,
>> > 
>> > as much as I like the Playground thingy for regexen, it’s nothing we 
>> didn’t do already on regex101 for the last years.
>> > 
>> > So, instead of those gimmicky (though nice) additions, I really would 
>> like to see non-contigous selection. As almost any other text program on 
>> macOS can do.
>> > 
>> > Any thoughts/timeline?
>>
>> -- 
>> This is the BBEdit Talk public discussion group. If you have a 
>> feature request or need technical support, please email
>> "sup...@barebones.com " rather than posting to the group.
>> Follow @bbedit on Twitter: 
>> --- 

Re: BBEdit 13: Please, improvements instead of gimmicks

[bruce linde]

i was responding to your specific example… which is easily handled by find and 
replace. for me, it’s as simple as… without looking at my hands:

command-e - pack find field
command-option-e - pack replace field
command-f 
select ‘selected text only’
replace all

not sure what your flow is, but this is so second nature to me that it takes < 
15 seconds. and… i trust bbedit to find ALL instances of something (selected 
text only, or not) more than i trust myself… yet another argument for my 
method. using combinations of keyboard and mouse gives the best results AND 
flow (imho).

on the other hand, i could use a ‘select non-contiguous text’ feature when in 
applied bullshitology mode and writing copy for my clients’ websites. it would 
be nice to be able to select non-continguous sentences (for example) and then 
paste them into a new/re-assembled paragraph.

bruce











> On Oct 11, 2019, at 8:34 AM, Sam Hathaway  > wrote:
> 
> I don’t really know how to articulate this.
> 
> Maybe: opening the dialog box breaks flow.
> 
> Or: it feels more natural to do this with multiple selections.
> 
> In a sense, it’s more of a “direct manipulation” than using the find/replace 
> tool.
> 
> Also: selecting a large range of text (a complete function, including the 
> prototype, etc.) is often awkward, requiring use of the mouse or a lot of 
> fiddling with arrow keys. The multiple selection workflow is completely 
> keyboard-based.
> 
> I’m not disputing that there may be ways to achieve the same goal in BBEdit 
> currently. My claim is that multiple selection has advantages over the 
> current methods.
> 
> Hope this helps.
> -sam
> 
> On 11 Oct 2019, at 10:58, bruce linde wrote:
> 
> wait… 
> 
> 1. select your ‘want to change things in this block of text’ section.
> 
> 2. set your ‘find ’ text and your ‘replace with __’ text
> 
> 3. check the ‘search and replace in selected text only’ checkbox.
> 
> unless i’m missing something?
> 
> bruce
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Oct 11, 2019, at 7:48 AM, Sam Hathaway > > wrote:
>> 
>> On October 11, 2019 3:26:56 AM Gustave Stresen-Reuter tedmaster...@gmail.com 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> What else would you use discontiguous selections for (serious question)?
>> 
>> Lack of multiple selection is one of several things that make me jealous of 
>> VSCode/Atom/SublimeText users. In one of those editors, I would change the 
>> types of some variables in a struct like this:
>> 
>> select a word (say, uint16_t)
>> hit a key combo to also select the next instance of the selected word
>> and the next one
>> and the next one
>> ok, I've selected all the instances of uint16_t in this struct that I want 
>> to change
>> type: uint32_t
>> This is different from editing all instance of some text. If I’m changing a 
>> few variables in one struct from being 16-bit to 32-bit, that doesn’t mean I 
>> want to change every single uint16_t in the file.
>> 
>> I can get close with current BBEdit like this:
>> 
>> select a word (say, uint16_t)
>> hit Cmd-E (to set find text)
>> type: uint32_t
>> hit Opt-Shift-Left to select the word I just typed
>> hit Cmd-Opt-E (to set replace text)
>> hit Cmd-G
>> hit Cmd-T
>> hit Cmd-T
>> hit Cmd-T
>> This is… okay… I guess… but the keyboard acrobatics are a little stressful 
>> on my fingers, and I don’t like that I have to enter the replacement text 
>> first, before selecting all the instances that I want to change. It’s 
>> conceptually cleaner for me to “grab” all the text I want to change, and 
>> then change it all at once.
>> 
>> If all the words I want to change are on adjacent lines and lined up 
>> vertically, I can use a rectangular selection and this works pretty well (as 
>> long as I remember to use Cmd-Z rather than Backspace if I make a mistake). 
>> I wish I could do this even when things are not lined up nicely.
>> 
>> Does that make sense?
>> -sam
>> 
>> On 11 Oct 2019, at 3:26, Gustave Stresen-Reuter wrote:
>> 
>> Not sure if this is what you want but you can edit all instances of found 
>> text. Not at my computer so can't consult the docs but it is possible.
>> 
>> What else would you use discontiguous selections for (serious question)?
>> 
>> Ted
>> 
>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 3:45 AM Tom Robinson > > wrote:
>> See the ungimmicky footer of every message to this group:
>> 
>> > If you have a 
>> > feature request or need technical support, please email
>> > "supp...@barebones.com " rather than posting 
>> > to the group.
>> 
>> 
>> > On 2019-10-11, at 14:20, 'Tom' via BBEdit Talk > > > wrote:
>> > 
>> > Hey guys,
>> > 
>> > as much as I like the Playground thingy for regexen, it’s nothing we 
>> > didn’t do already on regex101 for the last years.
>> > 
>> > So, instead of those gimmicky (though nice) 

Re: BBEdit 13: Please, improvements instead of gimmicks

[Sam Hathaway]

I don’t really know how to articulate this.

Maybe: opening the dialog box breaks flow.

Or: it feels more _natural_ to do this with multiple selections.

In a sense, it’s more of a “direct manipulation” than using the 
find/replace tool.


Also: selecting a large range of text (a complete function, including 
the prototype, etc.) is often awkward, requiring use of the mouse or a 
lot of fiddling with arrow keys. The multiple selection workflow is 
completely keyboard-based.


I’m not disputing that there may be ways to achieve the same goal in 
BBEdit currently. My claim is that multiple selection has advantages 
over the current methods.


Hope this helps.
-sam

On 11 Oct 2019, at 10:58, bruce linde wrote:


wait…

1. select your ‘want to change things in this block of text’ 
section.


2. set your ‘find ’ text and your ‘replace with __’ 
text


3. check the ‘search and replace in selected text only’ checkbox.

unless i’m missing something?

bruce








On Oct 11, 2019, at 7:48 AM, Sam Hathaway > wrote:


On October 11, 2019 3:26:56 AM Gustave Stresen-Reuter 
tedmaster...@gmail.com  wrote:


What else would you use discontiguous selections for (serious 
question)?


Lack of multiple selection is one of several things that make me 
jealous of VSCode/Atom/SublimeText users. In one of those editors, I 
would change the types of some variables in a struct like this:


select a word (say, uint16_t)
hit a key combo to also select the next instance of the selected word
and the next one
and the next one
ok, I've selected all the instances of uint16_t in this struct that I 
want to change

type: uint32_t
This is different from editing all instance of some text. If I’m 
changing a few variables in one struct from being 16-bit to 32-bit, 
that doesn’t mean I want to change every single uint16_t in the 
file.


I can get close with current BBEdit like this:

select a word (say, uint16_t)
hit Cmd-E (to set find text)
type: uint32_t
hit Opt-Shift-Left to select the word I just typed
hit Cmd-Opt-E (to set replace text)
hit Cmd-G
hit Cmd-T
hit Cmd-T
hit Cmd-T
This is… okay… I guess… but the keyboard acrobatics are a 
little stressful on my fingers, and I don’t like that I have to 
enter the replacement text first, before selecting all the instances 
that I want to change. It’s conceptually cleaner for me to 
“grab” all the text I want to change, and then change it all at 
once.


If all the words I want to change are on adjacent lines and lined up 
vertically, I can use a rectangular selection and this works pretty 
well (as long as I remember to use Cmd-Z rather than Backspace if I 
make a mistake). I wish I could do this even when things are not 
lined up nicely.


Does that make sense?
-sam

On 11 Oct 2019, at 3:26, Gustave Stresen-Reuter wrote:

Not sure if this is what you want but you can edit all instances of 
found text. Not at my computer so can't consult the docs but it is 
possible.


What else would you use discontiguous selections for (serious 
question)?


Ted

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 3:45 AM Tom Robinson > wrote:

See the ungimmicky footer of every message to this group:


If you have a
feature request or need technical support, please email
"supp...@barebones.com " rather than 
posting to the group.



On 2019-10-11, at 14:20, 'Tom' via BBEdit Talk 
mailto:bbedit@googlegroups.com>> wrote:


Hey guys,

as much as I like the Playground thingy for regexen, it’s nothing 
we didn’t do already on regex101 for the last years.


So, instead of those gimmicky (though nice) additions, I really 
would like to see non-contigous selection. As almost any other text 
program on macOS can do.


Any thoughts/timeline?


--
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 to the group.
Follow @bbedit on Twitter: >

---
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/BEE3E49E-192F-4E8C-9D83-287ECB930EAE%40gmail.com 
.


--
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 to the group.
Follow @bbedit on Twitter: >

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "BBEdit Talk" 

Re: BBEdit 13: Please, improvements instead of gimmicks

['StefanW' via BBEdit Talk]

+1 on the might-be-missing-something - but also there's:
- set text-to-find and text-to-replace
- Search --> Replace All in Selection (control-command-equal)

The only reason I can imagine right now why that wouldn't work as a 
solution for the use case cited is if instances of matching text that are 
NOT to be changed fall within the selected text. 

Having the ability to have multiple non-contiguous selection ranges does 
sound appealing, but it would probably have to be some new modifier-key for 
a click-and-drag IMHO.



On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 10:59:02 AM UTC-4, Bruce Linde wrote:
>
> wait… 
>
> 1. select your ‘want to change things in this block of text’ section.
>
> 2. set your ‘find ’ text and your ‘replace with __’ text
>
> 3. check the ‘search and replace in selected text only’ checkbox.
>
> unless i’m missing something?
>
> bruce
>
>

-- 
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 to the group.
Follow @bbedit on Twitter: 
--- 
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/b2cc3f08-b9ac-4549-a1ab-36b752974f09%40googlegroups.com.

Re: BBEdit 13: Please, improvements instead of gimmicks

[bruce linde]

wait… 

1. select your ‘want to change things in this block of text’ section.

2. set your ‘find ’ text and your ‘replace with __’ text

3. check the ‘search and replace in selected text only’ checkbox.

unless i’m missing something?

bruce








> On Oct 11, 2019, at 7:48 AM, Sam Hathaway  > wrote:
> 
> On October 11, 2019 3:26:56 AM Gustave Stresen-Reuter tedmaster...@gmail.com 
>  wrote:
> 
> What else would you use discontiguous selections for (serious question)?
> 
> Lack of multiple selection is one of several things that make me jealous of 
> VSCode/Atom/SublimeText users. In one of those editors, I would change the 
> types of some variables in a struct like this:
> 
> select a word (say, uint16_t)
> hit a key combo to also select the next instance of the selected word
> and the next one
> and the next one
> ok, I've selected all the instances of uint16_t in this struct that I want to 
> change
> type: uint32_t
> This is different from editing all instance of some text. If I’m changing a 
> few variables in one struct from being 16-bit to 32-bit, that doesn’t mean I 
> want to change every single uint16_t in the file.
> 
> I can get close with current BBEdit like this:
> 
> select a word (say, uint16_t)
> hit Cmd-E (to set find text)
> type: uint32_t
> hit Opt-Shift-Left to select the word I just typed
> hit Cmd-Opt-E (to set replace text)
> hit Cmd-G
> hit Cmd-T
> hit Cmd-T
> hit Cmd-T
> This is… okay… I guess… but the keyboard acrobatics are a little stressful on 
> my fingers, and I don’t like that I have to enter the replacement text first, 
> before selecting all the instances that I want to change. It’s conceptually 
> cleaner for me to “grab” all the text I want to change, and then change it 
> all at once.
> 
> If all the words I want to change are on adjacent lines and lined up 
> vertically, I can use a rectangular selection and this works pretty well (as 
> long as I remember to use Cmd-Z rather than Backspace if I make a mistake). I 
> wish I could do this even when things are not lined up nicely.
> 
> Does that make sense?
> -sam
> 
> On 11 Oct 2019, at 3:26, Gustave Stresen-Reuter wrote:
> 
> Not sure if this is what you want but you can edit all instances of found 
> text. Not at my computer so can't consult the docs but it is possible.
> 
> What else would you use discontiguous selections for (serious question)?
> 
> Ted
> 
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 3:45 AM Tom Robinson  > wrote:
> See the ungimmicky footer of every message to this group:
> 
> > If you have a 
> > feature request or need technical support, please email
> > "supp...@barebones.com " rather than posting 
> > to the group.
> 
> 
> > On 2019-10-11, at 14:20, 'Tom' via BBEdit Talk  > > wrote:
> > 
> > Hey guys,
> > 
> > as much as I like the Playground thingy for regexen, it’s nothing we didn’t 
> > do already on regex101 for the last years.
> > 
> > So, instead of those gimmicky (though nice) additions, I really would like 
> > to see non-contigous selection. As almost any other text program on macOS 
> > can do.
> > 
> > Any thoughts/timeline?
> 
> -- 
> 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 to 
> the group.
> Follow @bbedit on Twitter:  >
> --- 
> 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/BEE3E49E-192F-4E8C-9D83-287ECB930EAE%40gmail.com
>  
> .
> 
> -- 
> 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 to 
> the group.
> Follow @bbedit on Twitter:  >
> --- 
> 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/CAKAQjicfJDhvaak3n9hEXL95o-WcTajgD2ovFBETM-rfekVP_Q%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .
> 
> -- 
> 

Re: BBEdit 13: Please, improvements instead of gimmicks

[Sam Hathaway]

On October 11, 2019 3:26:56 AM Gustave Stresen-Reuter 
 wrote:


What else would you use discontiguous selections for (serious 
question)?


Lack of multiple selection is one of several things that make me jealous 
of VSCode/Atom/SublimeText users. In one of those editors, I would 
change the types of some variables in a struct like this:


- select a word (say, `uint16_t`)
- hit a key combo to also select the next instance of the selected word
- and the next one
- and the next one
- ok, I've selected all the instances of `uint16_t` in this struct that 
I want to change

- type: `uint32_t`

This is different from editing _all_ instance of some text. If I’m 
changing a few variables in one struct from being 16-bit to 32-bit, that 
doesn’t mean I want to change every single `uint16_t` in the file.


I can get close with current BBEdit like this:

- select a word (say, `uint16_t`)
- hit Cmd-E (to set find text)
- type: `uint32_t`
- hit Opt-Shift-Left to select the word I just typed
- hit Cmd-Opt-E (to set replace text)
- hit Cmd-G
- hit Cmd-T
- hit Cmd-T
- hit Cmd-T

This is… okay… I guess… but the keyboard acrobatics are a little 
stressful on my fingers, and I don’t like that I have to enter the 
replacement text first, before selecting all the instances that I want 
to change. It’s conceptually cleaner for me to “grab” all the text 
I want to change, and then change it all at once.


If all the words I want to change are on adjacent lines and lined up 
vertically, I can use a rectangular selection and this works pretty well 
(as long as I remember to use Cmd-Z rather than Backspace if I make a 
mistake). I wish I could do this even when things are not lined up 
nicely.


Does that make sense?
-sam

On 11 Oct 2019, at 3:26, Gustave Stresen-Reuter wrote:

Not sure if this is what you want but you can edit all instances of 
found

text. Not at my computer so can't consult the docs but it is possible.

What else would you use discontiguous selections for (serious 
question)?


Ted

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 3:45 AM Tom Robinson  
wrote:



See the ungimmicky footer of every message to this group:


If you have a
feature request or need technical support, please email
"supp...@barebones.com" rather than posting to the group.



On 2019-10-11, at 14:20, 'Tom' via BBEdit Talk 


wrote:


Hey guys,

as much as I like the Playground thingy for regexen, it’s nothing 
we

didn’t do already on regex101 for the last years.


So, instead of those gimmicky (though nice) additions, I really 
would
like to see non-contigous selection. As almost any other text program 
on

macOS can do.


Any thoughts/timeline?


--
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 to the group.
Follow @bbedit on Twitter: 
---
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/BEE3E49E-192F-4E8C-9D83-287ECB930EAE%40gmail.com
.



--
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 to the group.
Follow @bbedit on Twitter: 
---
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/CAKAQjicfJDhvaak3n9hEXL95o-WcTajgD2ovFBETM-rfekVP_Q%40mail.gmail.com.



--
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 to the group.
Follow @bbedit on Twitter: 
--- 
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/6075C4ED-9B46-4D05-9A40-1DA84D69B388%40munkynet.org.

Re: BBEdit 13: Please, improvements instead of gimmicks

[Gustave Stresen-Reuter]

Not sure if this is what you want but you can edit all instances of found
text. Not at my computer so can't consult the docs but it is possible.

What else would you use discontiguous selections for (serious question)?

Ted

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 3:45 AM Tom Robinson  wrote:

> See the ungimmicky footer of every message to this group:
>
> > If you have a
> > feature request or need technical support, please email
> > "supp...@barebones.com" rather than posting to the group.
>
>
> > On 2019-10-11, at 14:20, 'Tom' via BBEdit Talk 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > as much as I like the Playground thingy for regexen, it’s nothing we
> didn’t do already on regex101 for the last years.
> >
> > So, instead of those gimmicky (though nice) additions, I really would
> like to see non-contigous selection. As almost any other text program on
> macOS can do.
> >
> > Any thoughts/timeline?
>
> --
> 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 to the group.
> Follow @bbedit on Twitter: 
> ---
> 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/BEE3E49E-192F-4E8C-9D83-287ECB930EAE%40gmail.com
> .
>

-- 
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 to the group.
Follow @bbedit on Twitter: 
--- 
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/CAKAQjicfJDhvaak3n9hEXL95o-WcTajgD2ovFBETM-rfekVP_Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: BBEdit 13: Please, improvements instead of gimmicks

[Tom Robinson]

See the ungimmicky footer of every message to this group:

> If you have a 
> feature request or need technical support, please email
> "supp...@barebones.com" rather than posting to the group.


> On 2019-10-11, at 14:20, 'Tom' via BBEdit Talk  
> wrote:
> 
> Hey guys,
> 
> as much as I like the Playground thingy for regexen, it’s nothing we didn’t 
> do already on regex101 for the last years.
> 
> So, instead of those gimmicky (though nice) additions, I really would like to 
> see non-contigous selection. As almost any other text program on macOS can do.
> 
> Any thoughts/timeline?

-- 
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 to the group.
Follow @bbedit on Twitter: 
--- 
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/BEE3E49E-192F-4E8C-9D83-287ECB930EAE%40gmail.com.

BBEdit 13: Please, improvements instead of gimmicks

['Tom' via BBEdit Talk]

Hey guys,

as much as I like the Playground thingy for regexen, it’s nothing we didn’t 
do already on regex101 for the last years.

So, instead of those gimmicky (though nice) additions, I really would like 
to see non-contigous selection. As almost any other text program on macOS 
can do.

Any thoughts/timeline?

Thanks,

-- 
Tom

-- 
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 to the group.
Follow @bbedit on Twitter: 
--- 
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/c340e4b6-5f9e-4247-adba-92269790fa41%40googlegroups.com.