XYplorer Beta Club

admin wrote:+ Visual Filter: added auto-wildcarding ...

I don't like it. I've had this discussion before with other file managers and I still don't see the logic in it or, according to them, how it makes things easier. If I want to see if there is a file 01.jpg in a folder and I enter 01.jpg in the visual filter then I see 01.jpg, 001.jpg, pic001.jpg etc... which is no help at all if there are thirty plus files with names of *01.jpg!
Can there be an option NOT to have auto-wildcarding?

Gandolf wrote:

admin wrote:+ Visual Filter: added auto-wildcarding ...

I don't like it. I've had this discussion before with other file managers and I still don't see the logic in it or, according to them, how it makes things easier. If I want to see if there is a file 01.jpg in a folder and I enter 01.jpg in the visual filter then I see 01.jpg, 001.jpg, pic001.jpg etc... which is no help at all if there are thirty plus files with names of *01.jpg!
Can there be an option NOT to have auto-wildcarding?

Ah, good point. Although I would never use VF to checking for one file. I would simply sort by name and scroll to the file.
But, hey, when you keep the VF and browse different locations looking for that one file, that makes sense!! (Never thought of this cool usage... ).
So, what about quoting a pattern to signal it shall be an exact match?! You'd have to enter "file 01.jpg" then.

admin wrote:But, hey, when you keep the VF and browse different locations looking for that one file, that makes sense!! (Never thought of this cool usage... ).

Allthough that's not always for one file only, and can include wildcars, I use VF for thoose "quick manual search" every day!!

admin wrote:So, what about quoting a pattern to signal it shall be an exact match?! You'd have to enter "file 01.jpg" then.

I vote yes !

jacky wrote:

admin wrote:So, what about quoting a pattern to signal it shall be an exact match?! You'd have to enter "file 01.jpg" then.

I vote yes !

Me too! The same syntax would apply to Selection Filter and even to Find Files, making the slightly confusing "Exact Match" checkbox obsolete! Good?

admin wrote:The same syntax would apply to Selection Filter and even to Find Files, making the slightly confusing "Exact Match" checkbox obsolete! Good?

Sounds good to me. And I dont even have Templates with EM checked so it's all good for me

Side-note: hmm so VF do not support RegExp (>) it seems! Damn, I was sure it did!
Any reason for this? Since even Selection Filters does support it, made sense to me that VF would too

jacky wrote:

admin wrote:The same syntax would apply to Selection Filter and even to Find Files, making the slightly confusing "Exact Match" checkbox obsolete! Good?

Sounds good to me. And I dont even have Templates with EM checked so it's all good for me

I think nobody has, apart from Gandolf, of course.

jacky wrote:Side-note: hmm so VF do not support RegExp (>) it seems! Damn, I was sure it did!
Any reason for this? Since even Selection Filters does support it, made sense to me that VF would too

Ah yes, I'll add that tomorrow.

admin wrote:So, what about quoting a pattern to signal it shall be an exact match?!

Interesting idea. The normal way to avoid the multiple selection is to add a wildcard. 01.jpg* would display 01.jpg, and probably nothing else, which appears illogical to me. It doesn't always work so a means of indication exact match looks excellent.

admin wrote:But, hey, when you keep the VF and browse different locations looking for that one file, that makes sense!! (Never thought of this cool usage... Embarassed ).

Like jacky, I do it regularly. It's quicker than a search if you have a good idea what directories contain the matching files.

admin wrote:The same syntax would apply to Selection Filter and even to Find Files, making the slightly confusing "Exact Match" checkbox obsolete! Good?

Yes, good idea for the Find Files Exact Match to go. Enclosing the matching text in quotes is also consistent with many web search engines, I like it.

I add my vote to switching the Exact Match to using the quotes...
Just curious...could it be done also if there was only a leading "?
So we could get lazy and not need the trailing one? That a leading quote would default to a trailing quote after last non-blank if no trailing quote...

j_c_hallgren wrote:I add my vote to switching the Exact Match to using the quotes...
Just curious...could it be done also if there was only a leading "?
So we could get lazy and not need the trailing one? That a leading quote would default to a trailing quote after last non-blank if no trailing quote...

Yes, the trailing quote is redundant and will be optional. Laziness rules!

admin wrote:

jacky wrote:Side-note: hmm so VF do not support RegExp (>) it seems! Damn, I was sure it did!
Any reason for this? Since even Selection Filters does support it, made sense to me that VF would too

Ah yes, I'll add that tomorrow.

Done.

Removed my post entry...found answer elsewhere!