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
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
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
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
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
+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
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
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
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
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
