Mark Smith wrote:
Do you really need to do it with MatchText? Aren't <is in, is among the
words of> etc going to work? Or do you really need it to be a one-liner?
Best,
Mark
ps. That's the third one ;-0
Yeah, I noticed that, and I'm not sure how it happened. I only sent one,
then waited an hour or so. Then I changed the outgoing server I was
using and sent again. Then three of them showed up. I didn't do it! ;)
Anyway, thanks to Ken, Eric, and yourself for the suggestions. I
probably didn't explain enough. If I were only checking a single block
of text then I'd use some of the built-in commands, but I have to loop
through a couple of zillion blocks. So I figured matchtext would be
faster if, hopefully, I could issue a single command for each lookup. If
I have to do multiple lookups for each text block, then I end up with:
if "dinosaur" is in tText and "dog" is in tText and "cat" is in tText
and that would require 3 times the number of lookups over a single
matchtext. Also, the number of words can vary so I'd have to construct a
repeat loop to build the command itself, and use a "do" statement to
execute it -- and both of those are slow. But if I'm wrong, I'd like to
know. Has anyone done any speed tests on this stuff?
Basically I need the fastest possible way to scan a large number of text
blocks for an indefinite number of words which occur in any portion of
the text.
I'll try Ken's thing too -- thanks Ken.
(I'll send this once and cross my fingers.)
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
