Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon.
Switch to the new Google Groups.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
argument to force search of *.inc files
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  6 messages - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Chris VandenHeuvel  
View profile  
 More options Dec 30 2011, 3:03 pm
From: Chris VandenHeuvel <ch...@vandenheuvel.me>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:03:43 -0800 (PST)
Local: Fri, Dec 30 2011 3:03 pm
Subject: argument to force search of *.inc files
Here's my current .ackrc:

--nosql
--type-add
php=es.inc

because the files I want to search take the form "common.es.inc" ...
as language files, they may also be named "common.en.inc" etc.

3 questions:

1. Do I have something wrong in my ackrc? It doesn't give errors, but
it's still not searching my files properly. If I add a location
parameter with a * on the end to search all files, then it sees them.

2. Would ack recognize something like php=*.inc?

3. If I used -a and then arguments like --nosql, would it make ack
switch from a whitelist to a blacklist?


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Andy Lester  
View profile  
 More options Dec 30 2011, 6:44 pm
From: Andy Lester <a...@petdance.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:44:33 -0600
Local: Fri, Dec 30 2011 6:44 pm
Subject: Re: [ack-users] argument to force search of *.inc files

> --type-add
> php=es.inc

You can't do "es.inc" in ack 1.x.  ack 2.x will be much more flexible.

> 2. Would ack recognize something like php=*.inc?

No.

> 3. If I used -a and then arguments like --nosql, would it make ack
> switch from a whitelist to a blacklist?

Yes, except that I'm pretty sure -a makes all file type checking stop.

xoxo,
Andy

--
Andy Lester => a...@petdance.com => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Bill Ricker  
View profile  
 More options Dec 30 2011, 11:55 pm
From: Bill Ricker <bill.n1...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 23:55:00 -0500
Subject: Re: [ack-users] argument to force search of *.inc files

On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Andy Lester <a...@petdance.com> wrote:
> Yes, except that I'm pretty sure -a makes all file type checking stop.

Tested and Confirmed

$ ack -a --nohtml -il 'john butler'
lists html files.

--
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Andy Lester  
View profile  
 More options Dec 31 2011, 1:22 am
From: Andy Lester <a...@petdance.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 00:22:21 -0600
Local: Sat, Dec 31 2011 1:22 am
Subject: Re: [ack-users] argument to force search of *.inc files

On Dec 30, 2011, at 10:55 PM, Bill Ricker wrote:

> Tested and Confirmed

> $ ack -a --nohtml -il 'john butler'
> lists html files.

The way to test that without actually searching is to use the -f flag.  The -f was originally a debugging tool for me to see what files would get searched, and I figured "Hey, this is actually useful."

xoxo,
Andy

--
Andy Lester => a...@petdance.com => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Bill Ricker  
View profile  
 More options Dec 31 2011, 1:33 am
From: Bill Ricker <bill.n1...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 01:33:33 -0500
Local: Sat, Dec 31 2011 1:33 am
Subject: Re: [ack-users] argument to force search of *.inc files

On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Andy Lester <a...@petdance.com> wrote:
> The way to test that without actually searching is to use the -f flag.
>  The -f was originally a debugging tool for me to see what files would get
> searched, and I figured "Hey, this is actually useful."

Yeah. But I was ack'ing for Butler at that time anyway, so I knew what the
right answers were. And thus they were in cache.

--
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Shlomi Fish  
View profile  
 More options Dec 31 2011, 3:53 am
From: Shlomi Fish <shlo...@shlomifish.org>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 10:53:50 +0200
Local: Sat, Dec 31 2011 3:53 am
Subject: Re: [ack-users] argument to force search of *.inc files
Hi Andy,

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:44:33 -0600

Andy Lester <a...@petdance.com> wrote:

> > --type-add
> > php=es.inc

> You can't do "es.inc" in ack 1.x.  ack 2.x will be much more flexible.

I noticed that a great deal of the questions posted here are being answered
with "it *will* be fixed in Ack 2.x" (i.e: sometime in the future). In the
meantime, we are stuck helpless with only Ack 1.x, and while the Ack 2.x beta
only supports a very small subset of its flags and functionality and is quite
unusable.

I recall that Ack 2.x has been under development for many months now -
possibly about two years. Why does it take so long? Wouldn't an adaptation of
the existing Ack 1.x have taken much less time than that? If you think a
complete rewrite was in order, then it must have been justified by a faster
development time, which doesn't appear to be the case.

I would have contributed to Ack, but I'm unhappy with some of the design
decisions in its code, such as the deliberately procedural and non-OOP
interface, which are not going to be addressed in Ack 2.

Regards,

        Shlomi Fish

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
"Star Trek: We, the Living Dead" - http://shlom.in/st-wtld

Chuck Norris can make the statement “This statement is false.” a true one.

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »