'Go to' wildcard limitations

What besides '*' is the new with Aurora Go to wildcarding designed to
recognize? I haven't had luck with a few other things I've tried such as
expressions that include '[BD]' or 'X..Y' as they simply turn all the
text red even when matches exist. Is this implemented using
java.util.regex wildcarding?

Thanks,
Jon

10 comments

It's intended to recognize '*' only. We tried to allow arbitrary regular
expressions there but found that it's not possible for "Go to File" (unlike
class and method names, file names can contain many special characters used
by regular expressions). That's why we disabled it.

Is this implemented using
java.util.regex wildcarding?


Yes. However, it's not very difficult to write a code that doesn't accept
regular expressions using regular expressions engine :)).

--
Valentin Kipiatkov
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.intellij.com
"Develop with pleasure!"

"Jon Steelman" <steelman@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b4j7d5$15s$1@is.intellij.net...

What besides '*' is the new with Aurora Go to wildcarding designed to
recognize? I haven't had luck with a few other things I've tried such as
expressions that include '[BD]' or 'X..Y' as they simply turn all the
text red even when matches exist. Is this implemented using
java.util.regex wildcarding?

>

Thanks,
Jon

>


0

Valentin Kipiatkov wrote:

It's intended to recognize '*' only. We tried to allow arbitrary regular
expressions there but found that it's not possible for "Go to File" (unlike
class and method names, file names can contain many special characters used
by regular expressions). That's why we disabled it.


I'm always curious about the thought process you guys use since you so
often end up with a great end result. So, if I understand you correctly,
only '*' is interpreted as a wildcard character in order to keep things
simple for the user and in the UI because for "Go to File" there are
quite possibly special characters in the filename? To give wildcard
power beyond '*' in GoToFile, users would have to known how to handle
quoting special characters and/or you would have to add an option to
turn off special characters. And to keep things simple and consistent,
you used the same simplified UI/approach for "Go to Class" and "Go to
Symbol" even though classes and symbols don't have the complication of
embedded wildcard-like characters and could benefit from wildcard
options without the complications associated with "Go to File"?

Thanks,
Jon

0

Everything said by you seems to closely reflect our thoughts. Don't you
consider them reasonable?

--
Valentin Kipiatkov
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.intellij.com
"Develop with pleasure!"

"Jon Steelman" <steelman@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b4nsfn$c19$1@is.intellij.net...

Valentin Kipiatkov wrote:

It's intended to recognize '*' only. We tried to allow arbitrary regular
expressions there but found that it's not possible for "Go to File"

(unlike

class and method names, file names can contain many special characters

used

by regular expressions). That's why we disabled it.

>

I'm always curious about the thought process you guys use since you so
often end up with a great end result. So, if I understand you correctly,
only '*' is interpreted as a wildcard character in order to keep things
simple for the user and in the UI because for "Go to File" there are
quite possibly special characters in the filename? To give wildcard
power beyond '*' in GoToFile, users would have to known how to handle
quoting special characters and/or you would have to add an option to
turn off special characters. And to keep things simple and consistent,
you used the same simplified UI/approach for "Go to Class" and "Go to
Symbol" even though classes and symbols don't have the complication of
embedded wildcard-like characters and could benefit from wildcard
options without the complications associated with "Go to File"?

>

Thanks,
Jon

>


0

I suppose what he was wondering about, at least that's what I do: why
don't you just allow more wildcard power for the lookup of classes and
methods than on files? It seems you disabled arbitrary regular
expressions for all three lookup modes because one of the would not
support them.

Michael

Valentin Kipiatkov wrote:

Everything said by you seems to closely reflect our thoughts. Don't you
consider them reasonable?

--
Valentin Kipiatkov
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.intellij.com
"Develop with pleasure!"

"Jon Steelman" <steelman@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b4nsfn$c19$1@is.intellij.net...

>>Valentin Kipiatkov wrote:
>>
>>>It's intended to recognize '*' only. We tried to allow arbitrary regular
>>>expressions there but found that it's not possible for "Go to File"


(unlike

>>>class and method names, file names can contain many special characters


used

>>>by regular expressions). That's why we disabled it.
>>
>>I'm always curious about the thought process you guys use since you so
>>often end up with a great end result. So, if I understand you correctly,
>>only '*' is interpreted as a wildcard character in order to keep things
>>simple for the user and in the UI because for "Go to File" there are
>>quite possibly special characters in the filename? To give wildcard
>>power beyond '*' in GoToFile, users would have to known how to handle
>>quoting special characters and/or you would have to add an option to
>>turn off special characters. And to keep things simple and consistent,
>>you used the same simplified UI/approach for "Go to Class" and "Go to
>>Symbol" even though classes and symbols don't have the complication of
>>embedded wildcard-like characters and could benefit from wildcard
>>options without the complications associated with "Go to File"?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Jon
>>



0

Just for more consistent behaviour AND because we consider arbitrary regular
expressions there to be of low priority.

--
Valentin Kipiatkov
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.intellij.com
"Develop with pleasure!"

"Michael Descher" <michael.descher@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:b4qj36$994$1@is.intellij.net...

I suppose what he was wondering about, at least that's what I do: why
don't you just allow more wildcard power for the lookup of classes and
methods than on files? It seems you disabled arbitrary regular
expressions for all three lookup modes because one of the would not
support them.

>

Michael

>

Valentin Kipiatkov wrote:

Everything said by you seems to closely reflect our thoughts. Don't you
consider them reasonable?

>

--
Valentin Kipiatkov
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.intellij.com
"Develop with pleasure!"

>

"Jon Steelman" <steelman@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b4nsfn$c19$1@is.intellij.net...

>
>>Valentin Kipiatkov wrote:
>>
>>>It's intended to recognize '*' only. We tried to allow arbitrary

regular

>>>expressions there but found that it's not possible for "Go to File"
>

(unlike

>
>>>class and method names, file names can contain many special characters
>

used

>
>>>by regular expressions). That's why we disabled it.
>>
>>I'm always curious about the thought process you guys use since you so
>>often end up with a great end result. So, if I understand you correctly,
>>only '*' is interpreted as a wildcard character in order to keep things
>>simple for the user and in the UI because for "Go to File" there are
>>quite possibly special characters in the filename? To give wildcard
>>power beyond '*' in GoToFile, users would have to known how to handle
>>quoting special characters and/or you would have to add an option to
>>turn off special characters. And to keep things simple and consistent,
>>you used the same simplified UI/approach for "Go to Class" and "Go to
>>Symbol" even though classes and symbols don't have the complication of
>>embedded wildcard-like characters and could benefit from wildcard
>>options without the complications associated with "Go to File"?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Jon
>>
>
>
>

>


0

Valentin Kipiatkov wrote:

Everything said by you seems to closely reflect our thoughts. Don't you
consider them reasonable?


I do consider your collective thoughts reasonable, and I came to agree
with them even before you confirmed your thoughts. I also and originally
saw it from Michael Descher's perspective as well-- that's what got me
started with the posting (along with wanting to understand your thought
process), but by the time I had considered it through and penned my
thoughts down in the posting, I was in agreement with what I suspected
was your reasoning. I admire the balance and weighing of issues that go
into the decision making for IDEA and believe it can be a positive
influence on us beyond our use of the ide-- that it can extend to how we
think about the products and systems we build.

Thanks,
Jon

0

Jon Steelman wrote:

Valentin Kipiatkov wrote:

>> Everything said by you seems to closely reflect our thoughts. Don't you
>> consider them reasonable?


I do consider your collective thoughts reasonable, and I came to agree
with them even before you confirmed your thoughts. I also and originally
saw it from Michael Descher's perspective as well-- that's what got me
started with the posting (along with wanting to understand your thought
process), but by the time I had considered it through and penned my
thoughts down in the posting, I was in agreement with what I suspected
was your reasoning. I admire the balance and weighing of issues that go
into the decision making for IDEA and believe it can be a positive
influence on us beyond our use of the ide-- that it can extend to how we
think about the products and systems we build.


You can't be serious here, can you?

--
Dmitry Skavish
-


Boston, MA, USA
tel. +1 781 910-3810
http://www.jzox.com
http://www.flashgap.com

0

Dmitry Skavish wrote:

Jon Steelman wrote:

>> Valentin Kipiatkov wrote:
>>
>>> Everything said by you seems to closely reflect our thoughts. Don't you
>>> consider them reasonable?
>>
>>
>> I do consider your collective thoughts reasonable, and I came to agree
>> with them even before you confirmed your thoughts. I also and
>> originally saw it from Michael Descher's perspective as well-- that's
>> what got me started with the posting (along with wanting to understand
>> your thought process), but by the time I had considered it through and
>> penned my thoughts down in the posting, I was in agreement with what I
>> suspected was your reasoning. I admire the balance and weighing of
>> issues that go into the decision making for IDEA and believe it can be
>> a positive influence on us beyond our use of the ide-- that it can
>> extend to how we think about the products and systems we build.


You can't be serious here, can you?


Completely serious. How sad it would be if somebody couldn't be
influenced by the design and thinking behind a brilliant product, or
that they would be afraid to acknowledge that influence to the designers
and implementors as well as to the community.

Cheers,
Jon

0

Jon Steelman wrote:

Dmitry Skavish wrote:

>> You can't be serious here, can you?

Completely serious. How sad it would be if somebody couldn't be
influenced by the design and thinking behind a brilliant product, or
that they would be afraid to acknowledge that influence to the designers
and implementors as well as to the community.


I agree. What I meant is that your wording is rather ironic to my taste.
Just forget about it.

--
Dmitry Skavish
-


Boston, MA, USA
tel. +1 781 370-6909
http://www.jzox.com
http://www.flashgap.com

0

Please sign in to leave a comment.