I think the key semantic difference is Hypercard 'find' as command F Rev 'Find & Replace' dialog box [a different animal] as command F
In my opinion, the Rev Find & Replace is a more powerful set of tools and provides the ability to locate hits across stacks, as well as containers, producing a list. Then (something I wish the Mac System had) the ability to remove specific items from the hit list. Now you would be left with a residual listing on which to apply a 'replace' operation. The killer feature for me is the grep (regular expression) that I usually use in BBEdit or altBrowser.rev (extracting pearls from oily residue) Also note the popup menu of choices for the scope. Also note that double click = open script window containing hit line. This is not something that is easily scriptable, as you can with the HCard 'Find' Jim Ault Las Vegas On 10/16/05 8:14 PM, "Richard Gaskin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Timothy Miller wrote: >> Sorry, Richard, I probably don't completely understand your question. >> >> I'd guess you were once a HC user, but maybe not. SS stands for >> searchscript. It was a script that shipped with hyperCard, in the home >> stack. It was invoked by typing SS into the msg box. It searched for a >> string in every script in the top stack. >> >> You asked about "each of these scripts." That's the part of your >> question I didn't understand. >> >> FWIW, I was comparing the speed of Rev's Find stack, searching for a >> string in any script in the top stack versus hyperCard's SearchScript >> doing the same job in a similar stack, in classic mode. But you probably >> understood that part. >> >> Beyond that, I once wrote a test script comparing the milliseconds at >> beginning and end of script, the "find" command in a repeat loop, to >> find every instance of a string in any field of a rather large stack. I >> compared the elapsed time to the time Rev's "Find" stack took to do the >> same job, in the same stack, searching for field text only. I reported >> the whole thing on the list 2 or 3 months ago. >> >> As I recall, the "find" command was 59 times faster than the >> field-text-only find, using Rev's "Find" stack. It was easy to calculate >> because the script took less than two seconds, whereas the "Find" stack >> needed more than a minute to do the same job. >> >> Maybe that's what you were asking about. Not sure. > > It seems you understood my question well in spite of my vaguery. :) > > Rev is generally faster than HC with the exception of certain uses of > "find" (thanks to Atkinson's patented 'hint bits'), so I'd be curious to > read an analysis of why the two search solutions are so very different. > > I haven't used SS before, and am not even sure if I still have HC > installed on this machine. I don't use the Rev IDE either, but at least > I do have it around somewhere and could dig out the search window. > > With SS, what does the result give you? Does it produce a list of found > objects, or take you to them sequentially? > > I'm pretty confident Rev can deliver a search solution that performs > roughly on par with HC overall, esp. if we're talking about just > searching scripts rather than fields, as I believe "hint bits" only > apply to field objects. > > Maybe I can squeeze some time to sit down with those two scripts and > figure out where the time is being spent.... > > -- > Richard Gaskin > Managing Editor, revJournal > _______________________________________________________ > Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com > _______________________________________________ > use-revolution mailing list > [email protected] > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
