OpenEuphoria

Re: Minor Enhanced IDE bug

• Posted by Mike777 <anon4321 at gmail.c??> Jan 29, 2008
• 623 views

Judith Evans wrote:
> 
> Mike777 wrote:
> > 
> > Judith,
> > 
> > Here's one that will probably be very easy to swat.  When I am in a code
> > editor
> > and I invoke the Find/Replace dialog with cntl-F, and then type in what I
> > want
> > to look for (or not, if it is already there) I can then search for the
> > string
> > precisely twice by hitting enter on the keyboard.  After the second enter,
> > further
> > keyboard enters have no effect.  I must, to continue searching, use the
> > mouse
> > to click the Find Next button.  Once I've clicked the Find Next button once,
> > I can then return to using keyboard enters repeatedly.
> Yup that's the way it works. If you don't click Find Next button the Replace
> field gets focus and another press of Enter key goes to Whole Word and hangs
> there.
> 
> When I was developing find/replace no matter what I did someone found issue
> with it and wanted it to work another way and then someone would have problems
> with the new way.
> 
> I can change the order of tabbing such that after "word" is entered in Find
> field, pressing Tab key moves focus to Replace field. If Tab key is pressed
> again focus moves to the Find Button. If you press Enter key while focus is
> on Find Button multiple finds can occur. If you press tab again focus shifts
> to Replace button and if you press enter key the 
> "word" is replaced. The problem is getting back to Find Button again without
> a lot of tabbing. Right now tabbing goes to the checkbox controls but maybe
> they should be bypassed. 

As long as it is intentional behaviour I won't try to argue for substitution of
my preferred methods. If you revisit it at some point, just log my preference. 
As I've told you before, I'm a keyboard fan(atic).  Maybe something as simple as
having an accelerator key on the Find Next (alt-F would be my choice).

> > No big deal and certainly easy to work around.
> > 
> > One suggestion, if it is possible.  Would it be feasible to add a check box
> > that says: "Limit search to current procedure/function"?
> I'll consider it.

Great.

Thanks

Mike