Re: Piping to bbresults

[Christopher Finazzo]

My initial inclination was to use a Makefile because it would mean typing 
less and is itself portable elsewhere.

Thinking about this a bit more, it occurs to me that it may be easier to 
use the Scripts menu to access these items. Without modification, I presume 
any results would go to STDOUT - perhaps it could instead go to bbresults? 
(and a results browser)

Ignore the fact that the example  
uses Python, I was merely thinking about what the steps involved might look 
like.

On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 4:42:29 AM UTC-5 jj wrote:

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\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 

 
into a Makefile that includes a "proof" rule. This rule calls each of the 
underlying scripts - and Aspell  - 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 

Re: Piping to bbresults

[jj]

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\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 
> 
>  
> into a Makefile that includes a "proof" rule. This rule calls each of the 
> underlying scripts - and Aspell  - 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