@PeterJones

LOOOL

@Michael-Vincent

Personally I haven’t used DoxyIt in years. I wouldnt say it’s not supported, just my interest is quite lacking.

In light of recent circumstances I find myself with copious amounts of free time currently, so I will make it a point to take a look at your PR soon.

@TBugReporter said in Using the PythonScript plugin to automate N++:

I’m not sure whether you’re way overthinking this, or I’ve way underestimated the possibilities

I don’t know… You posed a fairly reasonable desire, and I put some reality onto some potential problems with getting to where you wanted to go.

Better to expose the “real world” of it, if it is known, before trying to solve the problem…, which we are now NOT going to do. :-)

@donho

NodeBB 😎
Notepad++ 😎

@Ekopalypse said in Perl subroutine calltips - with PythonScript:

Just to make clear, this function is not really needed.

That worked!

@guy038 said in Getting "Invalid Regular Expression" for an extremely simple expression:

At this point, I tried to select all the zones around these 11 matches in a small new file, that I named Matches.txt. Then, using the Mark dialog with (?:[^,]*,){13}[\u\l], against this small file, it does return 10 matches ( not 11 as explained in the next post ! )

However, it is distressing to note that the equivalent regex (?:.*?,){13}[\u\l] still fails against this tiny Matches.txt file, of only 16,138 bytes :-((

Unfortunately, it’s quite certain that cases, like that one, may arise when using most of the available regex engines !

There are two ways an implementation can look at a regex:

A regex is a definition of matching character strings. A regex is a procedure for matching character strings.

From the first perspective, your two expressions are equivalent: they specify the same strings as matches. From the second perspective, they are not: they specify different procedures for finding strings that match.

No one has found a way to implement back references using method 1. Once your regular expression syntax includes the ability to use back references, you are stuck with the procedural interpretation.

There are other features of PERL-compatible regular expressions that present problems, but back references are the killer.

I’m speculating here, but I think once you include any back reference in an expression, it breaks the ability to process any part of the expression that occurs before the back reference as a definition rather than a procedure. (I’m not certain of that. I have no doubt someone does know the answer to that… but that someone isn’t me.)

So I think you’ll find all those more efficient regular expression engines implement a severely restricted syntax for regular expressions which omits features none of us would like to do without (particularly, back references).

What I’ve also speculated is that perhaps a regular expression engine could include two engines: one which processes using the ”definition” approach for expressions to which it is applicable, and one which uses the “procedural” approach for the remaining expressions. I don’t know if any do that now.

@Alan-Kilborn said in Marked text manipulation:

Copy and cut of selected text would jam all of the text together if it were on a selection basis (probably not really useful that way).

Yes, you are right. Up to now, I’ve used my script only for deleting and editing the selections. But especially being able to multi-edit all occurences of a search term or overwrite them by multi-paste vastly increases productivity.

Thank you for renaming the title.

@go2to said:
Several other editors accept direct copy and paste in the replace-with box, be it CR+LF, LF or combination of both. They are probably written in C++. But I think it can be done in any language since CR and LF have the same codes.\r\n\r\nDon is busy now with other issues in 7.4.1. I saw there are problems with replacing again in several open files.\r\n

It is now one line after deleting CR+LF and adding \r\n. Everything is pasted in the replace box.
It works flawlessly in the current file, or all open files, or in find in files.

@peterjones, sorry… I tried my best to not hijack a thread with another issue, which is why I approached it this way since I had 3 different questions to hash out. I don’t see this happening in the future and will just make a new post with my need and only focus on questions related to other posts without expanding outside of the scope… Btw, I couldn’t update that typo because of the 3 minute rule, but since the shared code was correct, I figured it would be figured out.