Hidden Color Filter Feature

[j_c_hallgren]

Actually I think it could be parsed like this, but the ">" before the color starts looking a bit stupid now...
/size:min-max;>RRGGBB
/size:<n;>RRGGBB
/size:>n;>RRGGBB

Not stupid but it could be less confusing to have the semi-colon as separator...or is there some other common delimiter that could be used instead of both the ";>"? Because having just the second ">" when a ">" cond also exists is odd...and mixing a logical GT/LT with a delimiter of GT seems to lead to confusion.

[admin]

Actually I think it could be parsed like this, but the ">" before the color starts looking a bit stupid now...
/size:min-max;>RRGGBB
/size:<n;>RRGGBB
/size:>n;>RRGGBB

Not stupid but it could be less confusing to have the semi-colon as separator...or is there some other common delimiter that could be used instead of both the ";>"? Because having just the second ">" when a ">" cond also exists is odd...and mixing a logical GT/LT with a delimiter of GT seems to lead to confusion.

Yes, soon you can add an optional ";" if you like. The next version should make the majority happy...

[j_c_hallgren]

The next version should make the majority happy...

Code: Select all

v9.60.0114 - 2010-10-29 11:04
  +++ Configuration | Color Filters: Added color filters by file size. 
      You now can, for example, color all empty files in a certain way, 
      or all files bigger than a certain size. A useful thing if you ask 
      me.
      General syntax:
        /size:n       = exact size
        /size:<n      = smaller than n
        /size:>n      = bigger than n
        /size:<=n     = n or smaller
        /size:>=n     = n or bigger
        /size:min-max = from min to max (both inclusive)
        /size:min-    = min or bigger  (same as >=n)
        /size:-max    = max or smaller  (same as <=n)
      The size has to be given in raw bytes (not "2MB" or similar).
      A trailing ";" is optional. Like with all color filters, ";" can 
      also be used to concatenate patterns assigned to the same colors.
      Examples:
        /size:0
        /size:<500
        /size:<=1000
        /size:3000-5000;/size:8000-9000;
        /size:>1000000;
        /size:500000-;

Looks like very nice syntax to me! Can't see anything obvious that isn't easy to use.

[admin]

Yep. Next version adds human-friendly size formats ("10 MB" ...).

[admin]

You get it only tomorrow, of course.

(Emphasis mine).. I'm pretty sure this feature will be useful beyond just tomorrow. I'd like to see it as part of XY for at least a couple of weeks, maybe more! But keeping v9.60.0113 (or whatever) around just for this feature probably won't be worth it to me.

Oh, really? "Get it only tomorrow" means only tomorrow, but not after tomorrrow? Wow, English... So how would I say what I wanted to say?

[j_c_hallgren]

Oh, really? "Get it only tomorrow" means only tomorrow, but not after tomorrrow? Wow, English... So how would I say what I wanted to say?

Leave out the "only" as one way...or say "get it starting tomorrow", etc.

[admin]

Oh, really? "Get it only tomorrow" means only tomorrow, but not after tomorrrow? Wow, English... So how would I say what I wanted to say?

Leave out the "only" as one way...or say "get it starting tomorrow", etc.

In my original post (http://www.xyplorer.com/xyfc/viewtopic. ... 890#p53890) there was a context (see two words in bold: now and You), roughly "I have it now but you get it only tomorrow." This does not work in English?

[j_c_hallgren]

Oh, really? "Get it only tomorrow" means only tomorrow, but not after tomorrrow? Wow, English... So how would I say what I wanted to say?

Leave out the "only" as one way...or say "get it starting tomorrow", etc.

In my original post (http://www.xyplorer.com/xyfc/viewtopic. ... 890#p53890) there was a context (see two words in bold: now and You), roughly "I have it now but you get it only tomorrow." This does not work in English?

It's one of those cases where 'we' knew what you meant but strictly interpreting it as written, it would mean as being available one day only...so leaving out the 'only' or changing 'only' to 'starting' would still be needed.

[TheQwerty]

New syntax looks great.. though I think in the end we created something that requires more documentation than what you originally had.

Oh, really? "Get it only tomorrow" means only tomorrow, but not after tomorrrow? Wow, English... So how would I say what I wanted to say?

Leave out the "only" as one way...or say "get it starting tomorrow", etc.

In my original post (http://www.xyplorer.com/xyfc/viewtopic. ... 890#p53890) there was a context (see two words in bold: now and You), roughly "I have it now but you get it only tomorrow." This does not work in English?

Nope.. the 'only' makes it read such that it will be there tomorrow but not beyond ('One day only!'). Though since tomorrow is relative and today is never tomorrow, it could also be read that it will never become available and will forever be in tomorrow's release.

Dropping the 'only' gives the meaning you desired. 'I have it now, but you won't get it until tomorrow.'
Though I hope it's clear I realized that that was what you meant and doubt anyone would have truly been confused by the sentence.

[admin]

New syntax looks great.. though I think in the end we created something that requires more documentation than what you originally had.

Oh, really? "Get it only tomorrow" means only tomorrow, but not after tomorrrow? Wow, English... So how would I say what I wanted to say?

Leave out the "only" as one way...or say "get it starting tomorrow", etc.

In my original post (http://www.xyplorer.com/xyfc/viewtopic. ... 890#p53890) there was a context (see two words in bold: now and You), roughly "I have it now but you get it only tomorrow." This does not work in English?

Nope.. the 'only' makes it read such that it will be there tomorrow but not beyond ('One day only!'). Though since tomorrow is relative and today is never tomorrow, it could also be read that it will never become available and will forever be in tomorrow's release.

Dropping the 'only' gives the meaning you desired. 'I have it now, but you won't get it until tomorrow.'
Though I hope it's clear I realized that that was what you meant and doubt anyone would have truly been confused by the sentence.

Yeah sure, I just sometimes feel the need for more understanding. Thanks.

[admin]

New syntax looks great.. though I think in the end we created something that requires more documentation than what you originally had.

Oh yes, but that's fine. I think it turned into a cool feature, so thanks for your suggestions!

[serendipity]

New syntax looks great.. though I think in the end we created something that requires more documentation than what you originally had.

Oh, really? "Get it only tomorrow" means only tomorrow, but not after tomorrrow? Wow, English... So how would I say what I wanted to say?

Leave out the "only" as one way...or say "get it starting tomorrow", etc.

In my original post (http://www.xyplorer.com/xyfc/viewtopic. ... 890#p53890) there was a context (see two words in bold: now and You), roughly "I have it now but you get it only tomorrow." This does not work in English?

Nope.. the 'only' makes it read such that it will be there tomorrow but not beyond ('One day only!'). Though since tomorrow is relative and today is never tomorrow, it could also be read that it will never become available and will forever be in tomorrow's release.

Dropping the 'only' gives the meaning you desired. 'I have it now, but you won't get it until tomorrow.'
Though I hope it's clear I realized that that was what you meant and doubt anyone would have truly been confused by the sentence.

Yeah sure, I just sometimes feel the need for more understanding. Thanks.

Actually, i did not have problems understanding that sentence. Especially because of emphasis on "You" and no emphasis on "only". Plus Don uses the word "experimentally" if its going to be one day affair.