Is Ignore Extension feasible?
Something like ie: or !ext:
That way you could do something like find duplicate file names, regardless of extension.
> dupe: !ext:
So, 4th.of.july.avi matches 4th.of.july.mp4.
Ignore Extension
Re: Ignore Extension
Something like dupenamepart:
It should be easy to add.
Added to my TODO list.
It should be easy to add.
Added to my TODO list.
Re: Ignore Extension
My "dupe" was one example.
I'd think it more versatile if there were simply an ignore extension function.
And I'd think !ext: (not extension - as the name of the function) might fit the bill pretty well too, rather then having another name to remember. So knowing that there alreadys exists a function to find specific extensions, to me at least, seems logical if you NOT it, it will give "no extensions" (as in ignore extensions). (Well at least to my way of thinking, it fits
.)
I'd think it more versatile if there were simply an ignore extension function.
And I'd think !ext: (not extension - as the name of the function) might fit the bill pretty well too, rather then having another name to remember. So knowing that there alreadys exists a function to find specific extensions, to me at least, seems logical if you NOT it, it will give "no extensions" (as in ignore extensions). (Well at least to my way of thinking, it fits
.)Re: Ignore Extension
dupe: !ext:
The !ext: part would have to search the current results, something Everything can not do yet.
To do this efficiently results would have to always be sorted by name.
The !ext: part would have to search the current results, something Everything can not do yet.
To do this efficiently results would have to always be sorted by name.
Re: Ignore Extension
(I'm not saying that piggy backing on the ext: function is the "right" way to do it, I'm just saying that when you go to give this new function a name to me, !ext: seems logical [lets put int the past tense, seemed], with !ext: being totally different, execution wise, from ext:.
As in while the "names" might suggest they are built upon one another, they are in fact two totally separate functions.
But, heh, I guess if we're at this point, using the name !ext: is probably not a good idea, as while it might seem like a "logical" name to use, to me at least, using things like a NOT along with an existing function name & then returning unexpected results when other functions don't follow the same syntax, is going to end up being confusing.)
As in while the "names" might suggest they are built upon one another, they are in fact two totally separate functions.
But, heh, I guess if we're at this point, using the name !ext: is probably not a good idea, as while it might seem like a "logical" name to use, to me at least, using things like a NOT along with an existing function name & then returning unexpected results when other functions don't follow the same syntax, is going to end up being confusing.)