Searching via regular expressions

[JGM22]

I am trying to search on the word 'Extend'. I want to limit my search results where the word 'Extend' is the first word in the Item. Anyway to search and limit the results by using the first word ( ie: using regular expressions would be ^extend )?

I want the results as follows:
Extend blah blah <- I want this to show in the search results
Extend blah blah blah <- I want this to show in the search results
Blah Extend <- I want this excluded from the search results since extend is not the first word

Thank you,

JGM

[kinook]

Do an advanced search of (Item) matches wildcard Extend*

[JGM22]

Kinook - Thank you.

Feature request - Please add a checkbox at the bottom of the Search for windows to search on first word only.

[Jon Polish]

Would rather not have this option because it is too limiting. For example, what if I need to get results from the third word? Why not the last?

I think for this, regex is the way to go.

Jon

[armsys]

I think for this, regex is the way to go.
Jon
John, regex has been repeatedly requested by users but repeatedly ignored by Kinook for years.

[kinook]

Not true -- you are the only user that has ever requested regex search, and the responses to your requests contradicted the need for it.
http://www.kinook.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=3343
http://www.kinook.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=4674

In this thread, regex is really referring to a wildcard search, which is supported.
http://www.kinook.com/UltraRecall/Manual/matcheswildcard.htm
http://www.kinook.com/UltraRecall/Manual/phrasesearch.htm

[Jon Polish]

Thank you for these links. I also forgot NEAR which is very useful for some of my searches.

Jon

[schferk]

This is a good example for one of my points in the other thread, some days ago: Sometimes, UR makes available the functionality of its underlying open source database to the user, but at other times, it hides functionality of that database to him, and all the the big sector of "search" is concerned here, for one, by not passing on the whole strength of the database to the user, and also, by not presenting a really intuitive UI for that functionality (the "advanced search in UR having been often criticised for its not-too-intuitive UI, and that's also about speed for creating new searches and / or for altering existing ones); and second - cf. some other threads mentioning those problems - by UR's search results not being absolutely trustworthy in all circumstances.

In order to consider UR "perfect" (i.e. "perfect as it is and wants to be"), search, as well as formatting in the tree and a better editor, is certainly one of the fields where something has to be done.

I know that amending existing functionality is generally considered "thankless" and not an ideal measure for generating additional sales, but the problem is different here.

We have a developer who isn't into adding much additional functionality: ok. So this product, if it is to be considered "rounded-up", would much gain in "image" if in every existing functionality aspect it was optimized first.

As it is, UR's search lacks behind to what its database would have to offer and could make possible.

Putting some effort into this field also is of interest in view of the fact that the man behind askSam lately said AS isn't as dead as users fear but will bring out its version 8 rather soon. We also know how buggy previous versions were, but then, many people use AS or other databases, instead of db-based outliners like UR, because of their insufficient search capabilities, which is quite ironic in view of the fact that the underlying databases would enable these outliners to offer such functionlity to their users.

Thus, functionality that is originally existant, is withheld from the user here, hence people's need to deploy other software. Hence the commercial interest in supplying these needs, even if it's no real new features to advertize.

People don't fall back on AS and relational db's because they don't crave for the outline that programs like UR, MI, etc. put on top of db's, but because they decide they might be able to give up the outline if they absolutely have to decide between the two, but not the superior search capabilities offered over there... which could be offered here, too, with just some little effort.