Ditching DreamWeaver for good

[Greg Raven]

Adobe has announced they will be charging a higher monthly fee for 
Dreamweaver, which I cordially hated at the older lower price.

The only reason I keep it is that I occasionally inherit old websites that 
need rejuvenation and in Dreamweaver when I move and rename files and 
folders it adjusts all the links to match. This can save a ton of time.

I would dearly love to dump Dreamweaver forever. How does everyone else 
handle website re-arranging so that the internal links remain valid?

-- 
This is the BBEdit Talk public discussion group. If you have a 
feature request or would like to report a problem, 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 post to this group, send email to bbedit@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/bbedit.

Re: Regular expression with negative look-behind assertion

[Jean-Christophe Helary]

It looks like you forgot a space.

But it's weird, because I can match (? On Apr 16, 2018, at 7:35, F. Alfredo Rego  wrote:
> 
> I’m trying to find all “enabled” defines such as this:
> 
> #define _some_enabled_define_
> 
> while excluding all “disabled” (commented) defines such as this:
> 
> // #define _some_disabled_define_
> 
> 
> This regular expression causes BBEdit to include both of the above kinds of 
> defines (“enabled” defines and “disabled” (commented) defines) in the search 
> results:
> 
> (? 
> As far as I believe, the forward slash is not a special character, but I 
> tried escaping it anyway:
> 
> (? 
> Same results.
> 
> 
> To test whether macOS supports a negative look-behind assertion, I tried an 
> obviously incorrect regular expression and got a reassuring error message 
> which tells me that, at least, the syntax for the negative look-behind 
> assertion is checked correctly:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I missing something? Any clues?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Alfredo
> 
> 
> -- 
> This is the BBEdit Talk public discussion group. If you have a 
> feature request or would like to report a problem, 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 post to this group, send email to bbedit@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/bbedit 
> .

Jean-Christophe Helary
---
http://mac4translators.blogspot.com @brandelune


-- 
This is the BBEdit Talk public discussion group. If you have a 
feature request or would like to report a problem, 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 post to this group, send email to bbedit@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/bbedit.