View Single Post
Old 03-18-2017, 07:57 PM   #4
roger64
Wizard
roger64 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.roger64 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.roger64 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.roger64 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.roger64 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.roger64 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.roger64 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.roger64 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.roger64 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.roger64 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.roger64 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 2,625
Karma: 3120635
Join Date: Jan 2009
Device: Kindle PW3 (wifi)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer View Post
You (should) only group searches/replaces that you've tested extensively and trust to perform correctly
Quote:
Originally Posted by theducks View Post
Just don't execute the group unless you are sure the group is fully safe
These statements seem obvious but are only partially sound. I used these regex for quite a long time, and I am confident they work well for my usual workflow.

But, this is not enough: each book is a world of its own. Sometimes a discrete defect in the book (nobody is perfect but my mother) may hinder one of these regex. By performing a blind* group search, I will not know it, blissfully follow on and fail to implement some feature...

This means that I can never be sure a group search will work 100% on a new book, even if I trust every single component of the group. That's why I avoid all group searches. So, it defeats for me the purpose of this nice feature.

Note: "blind" means for me without a detailed report.

Last edited by roger64; 03-18-2017 at 08:16 PM. Reason: plural
roger64 is offline   Reply With Quote