Re: [Pharo-users] About GTSpotter matching

[Christophe Demarey]

Hi,

By the way, is it possible to have exact match now?
At least, I expect to have expect match on the top of the result list.
A simple use case,
open Spotter
search number
dive into implementors category

The exact matches are lost in the middle of hundreds of other selectors. This 
way, it is very difficult to find what you need.
It is also why I always need to open a playground to be able to search all 
implementors of a selector. It is not do-able with spotter without an exact 
match.

That said, I have to add that I really enjoy spotter and other GT tools :)

Christophe


Le 8 déc. 2015 à 01:56, Juraj Kubelka a écrit :

> 
>> 7. 12. 2015 v 11:59, Peter Uhnak :
>> 
>> On 12/07, Juraj Kubelka wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> # 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  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
>> 
> 
> 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [Pharo-users] About GTSpotter matching

[Juraj Kubelka]

Hi Christophe,

Not yet, but this is definitely way to improve Spotter. 

Thanks for the comment,
Juraj

--
Juraj Kubelka

8. 12. 2015 v 5:10, Christophe Demarey :

> Hi,
> 
> By the way, is it possible to have exact match now?
> At least, I expect to have expect match on the top of the result list.
> A simple use case,
> open Spotter
> search number
> dive into implementors category
> 
> The exact matches are lost in the middle of hundreds of other selectors. This 
> way, it is very difficult to find what you need.
> It is also why I always need to open a playground to be able to search all 
> implementors of a selector. It is not do-able with spotter without an exact 
> match.
> 
> That said, I have to add that I really enjoy spotter and other GT tools :)
> 
> Christophe
> 
> 
>> Le 8 déc. 2015 à 01:56, Juraj Kubelka a écrit :
>> 
>> 
>>> 7. 12. 2015 v 11:59, Peter Uhnak :
>>> 
 On 12/07, Juraj Kubelka wrote:
 Hi,
 
 # 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  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
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: [Pharo-users] About GTSpotter matching

[Mariano Martinez Peck]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 5:10 AM, Christophe Demarey <
christophe.dema...@inria.fr> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> By the way, is it possible to have exact match now?
> At least, I expect to have expect match on the top of the result list.
>

+1


> A simple use case,
>
>- open Spotter
>- search number
>- dive into implementors category
>
>
> The exact matches are lost in the middle of hundreds of other selectors.
> This way, it is very difficult to find what you need.
> It is also why I always need to open a playground to be able to search all
> implementors of a selector. It is not do-able with spotter without an exact
> match.
>
>
Indeed. I do the same. For searching implementors and senders I always have
to fallback to old implementors/senders tools.  :(


> That said, I have to add that I really enjoy spotter and other GT tools :)
>
> Christophe
>
>
> Le 8 déc. 2015 à 01:56, Juraj Kubelka a écrit :
>
>
> 7. 12. 2015 v 11:59, Peter Uhnak :
>
>
> On 12/07, Juraj Kubelka wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> # 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  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
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

Re: [Pharo-users] About GTSpotter matching

[Johan Fabry]

It’s cool that you have this, category filters are very useful. But it’s not 
discoverable from the user interface so it’s very unlikely that people will 
know they exist (except if they are reading this message ;-) ). How about 
adding a ‘filters’ UI element at the top, that adds the # expression 
to the search string when a filter is selected?

> On Dec 7, 2015, at 09:52, Juraj Kubelka  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> # is a category filter. Try #class, #instance, etc.
> 
> Wild characters are not possible to use. We are aware of this. But the case 
> is not that simple. If I remember well, there were some performance issues. 
> Then I have learnt that people are not aware of regular expressions or any 
> other kind of wild-characters. Even such simple thing like # 
> is confusing. We need to find out different way having this feature apparent.
> 
> Cheers,
> Juraj
> 
>> On Dec 5, 2015, at 20:40, Peter Uhnak  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
>> 
> 
> 
> 



---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <---

Johan Fabry   -   http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry
PLEIAD and RyCh labs  -  Computer Science Department (DCC)  -  University of 
Chile

Re: [Pharo-users] About GTSpotter matching

[Peter Uhnak]

On 12/07, Juraj Kubelka wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> # 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...

> 
> > On Dec 5, 2015, at 20:40, Peter Uhnak  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

Re: [Pharo-users] About GTSpotter matching

[Juraj Kubelka]

Hi,

# is a category filter. Try #class, #instance, etc.

Wild characters are not possible to use. We are aware of this. But the case is 
not that simple. If I remember well, there were some performance issues. Then I 
have learnt that people are not aware of regular expressions or any other kind 
of wild-characters. Even such simple thing like # is confusing. 
We need to find out different way having this feature apparent.

Cheers,
Juraj

> On Dec 5, 2015, at 20:40, Peter Uhnak  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
> 

Re: [Pharo-users] About GTSpotter matching

[Juraj Kubelka]

> 7. 12. 2015 v 11:59, Peter Uhnak :
> 
> On 12/07, Juraj Kubelka wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> # 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  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
> 

Re: [Pharo-users] About GTSpotter matching

[Alexandre Bergel]

Currently wildcard are not supported. I think this is in the roadmap of the GT 
team. But not supported for now.

However, there is strictly no need for it. Since you have the dive-in category:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31543901/MyPapers/Kube15a-VISSOFTNIER-SpotterAnalyzer.pdf

Cheers,
Alexandre

> On Dec 5, 2015, at 8:40 PM, Peter Uhnak  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
> 

-- 
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

Re: [Pharo-users] About GTSpotter matching

[Mariano Martinez Peck]

Yes, I asked about this also some months ago.
+1 for the desired feature!

On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Peter Uhnak  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
>
>


-- 
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

[Pharo-users] About GTSpotter matching

[Peter Uhnak]

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