Quote:
Originally Posted by Toxaris
I think I understand what you are saying here. I will check, I haven't touched that part for quite a while. You mean editing the S/R document within the settings, right?
|
The attachment shows the pointers I refer to - not a big issue this, the document is easy to change manually
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toxaris
Not getting what you mean here. If you mean by line item a search request, than you can do that yourself by putting that into the S/R request. If you put your search between <>, it should only hit complete words (wildcard search only). That is normal S/R behavior for Word.
|
The attachment also shows the bottom part of Words Find/Replace dialogue. I have highlighted the
whole words only and
find all word forms conditions. I was wondering if those two conditions could be placed in the table along with Wildcards and Case sensitive.
whole words only - Say I want to replace
leaned with
leant, but I wouldn't want
cleaned to be changed to
cleant. So in vanilla Word S&R I would check
whole words only. My experience is that using a leading or trailing space wont work because of adjacent quotes and punctuation.
find all word forms - I would use this if I wanted to do replaces such as
realise with
realize, it will pick up words like
realisation,
realised etc. I import quite a lot of documents where both the US & UK spelling variants are contained within the same document
The Word dictionary I use allows both variants. I could use a Word Exclusion dictionary to disallow
realise and all forms thereof, but... sometimes for political reasons I prefer to have the UK spelling variant. These mixed spelling documents are most often found in translations of public domain documents emanating from Continental Europe. I think I already said I'm a bit OCD on matters of consistency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toxaris
Perhaps. I do not thing it is an unrealistic expectation. I will think about it, but halving it is already an improvement. Not that it is hard to implement, but I do not feel the added value here.
|
Do you have any elderly relations or friends, if so I think its a safe bet that for some of them their short term memory is not what it once was. Or perhaps you know someone who has suffered a stroke, that's another condition that can lead to short term memory loss. And then there are interrupts, maybe you can remember the last pop up you saw after an hour on the phone, a bathroom visit and making a fresh coffee - but I can't, and I doubt that I ever could.
If I had the code (no I don't want it) the popups might be useful, but as an end user I find them irritating. If I want/need to remember them (see next section) then I will either have to run a video capture program and take snapshots or write them down, there's no chance of me doing the latter and the only time I tried a running a video capture program over Word, Word crashed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toxaris
This makes no sense at all. There is no difference between unattributed and attributed dialogue for the procedure. As long as curly quotes are used, all will be picked up. As a very brief explanation, part of the procedure is finding an opening mark and then grow the selection until it either finds a paragraph mark, an opening mark or a closing mark. In the latter case it is fine and the next opening mark is found. The other cases require action. On the way back it is vice versa. If you get reproducible false hits, I would be very, very interested in that since it would (almost) impossible.
|
I hear what you say. I have some primitive macros that do in part at least what the searching part of your tool does, so it was a surprise to me when I saw this happen. Especially as it was so inconsistent. I did save a couple of pages around one occurrence, needless to say it didn't happen on that fragment. I'm not even sure its consistent between running it today and running it tomorrow. I am running it on large documents 100,000+ words.
I'm sure I would be better able to see a pattern if I didn't have to confirm the change of state popups, and if the 'error' dialogue had the current state information as I suggested yesterday.
BR