Re: Programming: best ci strategy

[Harry Binswanger hb@xxxxxxxx]

Carl,


Thanks. This would be good for that one use. I was wondering if there was
some general way to do things more efficiently than I am. Apparently,
there's no guru's trick for such things.


Do you find, generally, that SEarch plus manipulations is as fast as CI?
My experience is that CI is always to be preferred, when it is possible
to use it.


Recently, I've had much anguish trying to use CI with [W]. One problem is
that [W] is too short, the other is that [W] is too long, so "looks
ahead" as it were to find things I didn't expect it or want it to
find.


--Harry


 But two things occur to me
off the bat. First, if "." is the

only offending separator, then you could use the [-] exclusion

wildcard (reverse video "-") to construct a CHange command
that

excludes ".". Second, sometimes the only way to work around
error

567 ("Wildcards must be in the same order on both sides of a

change") is to write your own CHange command (in the form

BX se /blah/Q2 )[make the
change]).

Putting those two ideas together, I come up with:


XPLeNCODE v2.0

b-gin [UNTITLED]

{<}LBa{>}[BX_]se /[wS][w-].print
/[Q2_]{<}IF@NOT({<}ER{>}){>}

"[BX_]se/f 
[wC][Q2_]"{<}GLa{>}{<}EI{>};*;[cr|lf]

-nd

XPLeNCODE


This assumes (because your examples also seem to assume) that the

material to be wrapped in double quotes alway ends with a CrLf. It

will not work on a "print" statement that occurs at the very
top of

the file (easily remedied), and it may be over- or under-inclusive

in other respects (again, hard to know without a more comprehensive

statement of the problem), but it may provide food for thought.


--

Carl Distefano

cld@xxxxxxxx




Harry Binswanger
hb@xxxxxxxx