find exact match to filename
Earlier in this topic, we hit upon a couple of simple workarounds to find (or filter for) an exact match. viz:
exactfilename,- ("I want this, minus the * padding.")
and
exactfilename,. ("I want this, period.")
In another thread, the negative question was posed:
viz: How does one exclude only a particular (exact) filename?.
For the exclusion case, it turns out that -exactfilename,. ("I want not this, period.") does not work because it is interpreted as "I want not this, and nothing else" -- which is, of course nothing at all.
The solution should be obvious. viz:
-exactfilename,* ("I want not this, but everything else.") or:
*,-exactfilename ("I want everything, except this")
By the way, it turns out that
-exactfilename,- ("I want not this, minus the * padding.")
works for the exact exclusion case as well as for the exact inclusion case.
PS to narayan - Earlier in the thread (over 14 months ago) you indicated you would add the exact name search to the UM, but I don't see it there. Now you can add something for both including and excluding exact name matches.
exactfilename,- ("I want this, minus the * padding.")
and
exactfilename,. ("I want this, period.")
In another thread, the negative question was posed:
viz: How does one exclude only a particular (exact) filename?.
For the exclusion case, it turns out that -exactfilename,. ("I want not this, period.") does not work because it is interpreted as "I want not this, and nothing else" -- which is, of course nothing at all.
The solution should be obvious. viz:
-exactfilename,* ("I want not this, but everything else.") or:
*,-exactfilename ("I want everything, except this")
By the way, it turns out that
-exactfilename,- ("I want not this, minus the * padding.")
works for the exact exclusion case as well as for the exact inclusion case.
PS to narayan - Earlier in the thread (over 14 months ago) you indicated you would add the exact name search to the UM, but I don't see it there. Now you can add something for both including and excluding exact name matches.
The problem from the rich@pottruff´s original message could also be solved manually.
1. Flatten the folder where the "a" files reside (including subfolders). The scrap container appears.
2. Arrange the files by Extension.
3. Select the files without extension, invert the selection (* key), remove (File > Remove) the selected files (those with any extension) from scrap container.
4. Arrange the files by Name and select and remove all files that are not named "a" from the scrap container.
Now only files named "a" and without extension are left in the scrap container.
I find it to be actually quick and quite straightforward way.
1. Flatten the folder where the "a" files reside (including subfolders). The scrap container appears.
2. Arrange the files by Extension.
3. Select the files without extension, invert the selection (* key), remove (File > Remove) the selected files (those with any extension) from scrap container.
4. Arrange the files by Name and select and remove all files that are not named "a" from the scrap container.
Now only files named "a" and without extension are left in the scrap container.
I find it to be actually quick and quite straightforward way.
Hmmm. That won't work.
If I want to find 01.001 but not 01.002 or 001.001 then I can't find an easy way to do it.
I just want to display the files that match the filter I enter - seems simple enough to me.
I still don't understand your logic of adding wild cards when not asked for, it just seems that "you" think you know what I want to find rather than allowing "me" to decide what to find.
At a quick glance I've got several hundred files in the wrong directories now, and have to do a lot of moving to get then right.
If I want to find 01.001 but not 01.002 or 001.001 then I can't find an easy way to do it.
I just want to display the files that match the filter I enter - seems simple enough to me.
I still don't understand your logic of adding wild cards when not asked for, it just seems that "you" think you know what I want to find rather than allowing "me" to decide what to find.
At a quick glance I've got several hundred files in the wrong directories now, and have to do a lot of moving to get then right.
Might be for you, but that is the extension (001, 002, etc...) that the studio editor software generates as backups - I have thousands of them!!!!
But the extension is not the point. The point is that I am unable to specify the filter I want because you think you know better, and decide to modify it.
How would you like it if selecting your favourite T.V. (or radio) program the broadcaster decided that you should watch what it wanted and not what you selected!!
We obviously aren't going to agree on this one, so I'll revert to FileLocator Pro for all my searching again.
Also, what about Excel files - *.xls, *.xla, *.xlt etc... or *.ini & *.inf. I'm sure there are dozens of files where using a wild card as the last character in the extension would not work.
But the extension is not the point. The point is that I am unable to specify the filter I want because you think you know better, and decide to modify it.
How would you like it if selecting your favourite T.V. (or radio) program the broadcaster decided that you should watch what it wanted and not what you selected!!
We obviously aren't going to agree on this one, so I'll revert to FileLocator Pro for all my searching again.
Also, what about Excel files - *.xls, *.xla, *.xlt etc... or *.ini & *.inf. I'm sure there are dozens of files where using a wild card as the last character in the extension would not work.
nikos,
Now that you have removed a useful, although perhaps unintended, 'feature', I think you owe it to your users to provide an alternative way to achieve a real exactfilename match.
As it stands, when we need to make such a filter, we are left with the cumbersome workaround of entering:
+exactfilename?,+?exactfilename
to separately defeat the unwanted pre and post * padding that you think everybody should like.
A nice solution for everybody, I think, would be a check-box for exact name match, as has been discussed in the past. :shock:
Now that you have removed a useful, although perhaps unintended, 'feature', I think you owe it to your users to provide an alternative way to achieve a real exactfilename match.
As it stands, when we need to make such a filter, we are left with the cumbersome workaround of entering:
+exactfilename?,+?exactfilename
to separately defeat the unwanted pre and post * padding that you think everybody should like.
A nice solution for everybody, I think, would be a check-box for exact name match, as has been discussed in the past. :shock: