> 7. 12. 2015 v 11:59, Peter Uhnak <i.uh...@gmail.com>:
> 
> On 12/07, Juraj Kubelka wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> #<anything> is a category filter. Try #class, #instance, etc.
> 
> Oh... right. I've been using this for long time, my brain just didn't
> connect the dots.
> 
> In either case, once you dive in the category filter is no longer
> applicable.
> So normally I would do "#i selector", then dive in, and then filter it.
> 
>> Then I have learnt that people are not aware of [...] any other kind of 
>> wild-characters.
> 
> People don't know what wild-chars are? I would understand that someone
> might be uncomfortable with regexps, because there are many variations, but 
> wildchars…

Well, some people asks for regular expressions, some people asks for 
wild-characters, some people prefers other techniques. 
In most cases people are satisfied with substring solution as it is right now. 
In some special cases people thinks about more advance solution. 
I believe that we should sort results according to relevance, e.g., if I write 
open, then selectors called open should be first, then likely openOn:, 
openWithSpec:, openVeryLongExplanation:, etc.

Cheers,
Juraj

> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 5, 2015, at 20:40, Peter Uhnak <i.uh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> are there some wildcards in GTSpotter matching?
>>> 
>>> Currently it searches anywhere in the (method) name, which makes it hard
>>> for shorter names, because it will match a lot of junk.
>>> 
>>> I've also discovered (by accident), that I can use '>>#selector' to
>>> anchor the start of the selection. ('#selector' for some reason doesn't
>>> work).
>>> But I would like to also search by a simple ? (any character), * (any
>>> characters) wildcard. Is that possible?
>>> 
>>> Additionally constraining it from the end would be also nice.
>>> For example I want to look through #default methods, however 90% of the
>>> matches will be junk, so I would like to write '#default$' and it will
>>> not match '#defaultIcon', etc.
>>> 
>>> Is this possible?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> -- 
>>> Peter
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Peter
> 


Reply via email to