Posted by
Juraj Kubelka on
Dec 08, 2015; 12:41am
URL: https://forum.world.st/About-GTSpotter-matching-tp4865534p4865918.html
> 7. 12. 2015 v 11:59, Peter Uhnak <
[hidden email]>:
>
> On 12/07, Juraj Kubelka wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> #<anything> is a category filter. Try #class, #instance, etc.
>
> Oh... right. I've been using this for long time, my brain just didn't
> connect the dots.
>
> In either case, once you dive in the category filter is no longer
> applicable.
> So normally I would do "#i selector", then dive in, and then filter it.
>
>> Then I have learnt that people are not aware of [...] any other kind of wild-characters.
>
> People don't know what wild-chars are? I would understand that someone
> might be uncomfortable with regexps, because there are many variations, but wildchars…
Well, some people asks for regular expressions, some people asks for wild-characters, some people prefers other techniques.
In most cases people are satisfied with substring solution as it is right now. In some special cases people thinks about more advance solution.
I believe that we should sort results according to relevance, e.g., if I write open, then selectors called open should be first, then likely openOn:, openWithSpec:, openVeryLongExplanation:, etc.
Cheers,
Juraj
>
>>
>>> On Dec 5, 2015, at 20:40, Peter Uhnak <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> are there some wildcards in GTSpotter matching?
>>>
>>> Currently it searches anywhere in the (method) name, which makes it hard
>>> for shorter names, because it will match a lot of junk.
>>>
>>> I've also discovered (by accident), that I can use '>>#selector' to
>>> anchor the start of the selection. ('#selector' for some reason doesn't
>>> work).
>>> But I would like to also search by a simple ? (any character), * (any
>>> characters) wildcard. Is that possible?
>>>
>>> Additionally constraining it from the end would be also nice.
>>> For example I want to look through #default methods, however 90% of the
>>> matches will be junk, so I would like to write '#default$' and it will
>>> not match '#defaultIcon', etc.
>>>
>>> Is this possible?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> --
>>> Peter
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Peter
>