Revolution back to HyperCard

[Jim Ault]

I think the key semantic difference is
Hypercard 'find' as command F
Rev 'Find & Replace' dialog box [a different animal] as command F

In my opinion, the Rev Find & Replace is a more powerful set of tools and
provides the ability to locate hits across stacks, as well as containers,
producing a list.  Then (something I wish the Mac System had) the ability to
remove specific items from the hit list.  Now you would be left with a
residual listing on which to apply a 'replace' operation.

The killer feature for me is the grep (regular expression) that I usually
use in BBEdit or altBrowser.rev (extracting pearls from oily residue)

Also note the popup menu of choices for the scope.
Also note that double click = open script window containing hit line.

This is not something that is easily scriptable, as you can with the HCard
'Find'

Jim Ault
Las Vegas

On 10/16/05 8:14 PM, "Richard Gaskin" <ambassador at fourthworld.com> wrote:

> Timothy Miller wrote:
>> Sorry, Richard, I probably don't completely understand your question.
>> 
>> I'd guess you were once a HC user, but maybe not. SS stands for
>> searchscript. It was a script that shipped with hyperCard, in the home
>> stack. It was invoked by typing SS into the msg box. It searched for a
>> string in every script in the top stack.
>> 
>> You asked about "each of these scripts." That's the part of your
>> question I didn't understand.
>> 
>> FWIW, I was comparing the speed of Rev's Find stack, searching for a
>> string in any script in the top stack versus hyperCard's SearchScript
>> doing the same job in a similar stack, in classic mode. But you probably
>> understood that part.
>> 
>> Beyond that, I once wrote a test script comparing the milliseconds at
>> beginning and end of script, the "find" command in a repeat loop, to
>> find every instance of a string in any field of a rather large stack. I
>> compared the elapsed time to the time Rev's "Find" stack took to do the
>> same job, in the same stack, searching for field text only. I reported
>> the whole thing on the list 2 or 3 months ago.
>> 
>> As I recall, the "find" command was 59 times faster than the
>> field-text-only find, using Rev's "Find" stack. It was easy to calculate
>> because the script took less than two seconds, whereas the "Find" stack
>> needed more than a minute to do the same job.
>> 
>> Maybe that's what you were asking about. Not sure.
> 
> It seems you understood my question well in spite of my vaguery.  :)
> 
> Rev is generally faster than HC with the exception of certain uses of
> "find" (thanks to Atkinson's patented 'hint bits'), so I'd be curious to
> read an analysis of why the two search solutions are so very different.
> 
> I haven't used SS before, and am not even sure if I still have HC
> installed on this machine.  I don't use the Rev IDE either, but at least
> I do have it around somewhere and could dig out the search window.
> 
> With SS, what does the result give you?  Does it produce a list of found
> objects, or take you to them sequentially?
> 
> I'm pretty confident Rev can deliver a search solution that performs
> roughly on par with HC overall, esp. if we're talking about just
> searching scripts rather than fields, as I believe "hint bits" only
> apply to field objects.
> 
> Maybe I can squeeze some time to sit down with those two scripts and
> figure out where the time is being spent....
> 
> --
>   Richard Gaskin
>   Managing Editor, revJournal
>   _______________________________________________________
>   Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution