Keystroke for <within ?> inoperable

[Anon]

This may be or may not be known. If it has please feel free to delete this post.

 

When building a search argument, with words selected, an error occurs when using the keystroke (⇧⌘W). For example, I begin searching for the lexeme פקד=

 

 

Then, if I want to search for this lexeme and the definite direct object (DDO) morpheme within a defined amount of words (<within ? Words>), I attempt to key in my <within ? words> command with they keystroke. It deletes what I entered thus far and inserts curly brackets:

 

 

Can anybody reduplicate this?

 

N.B.: If I type or enter the search command from the menu, this does not happen — which leads me to suspect the keystroke command.

 

Thanks Accordance Team for all the hard work!

[Helen Brown]

James:

 

The keystroke is working for me, so you need to show me with screenshare exactly what you are doing.

[Anon]

James:

 

The keystroke is working for me, so you need to show me with screenshare exactly what you are doing.

 

 

Thanks for responding, Helen. Your response sent me on a search, since your keystroke was operable. I forgot that I wrote a macro for morph tagging and had not delimited the scope only to BBEdit. I delimited the Macro and all is fine with the keystroke.

 

Thanks!

 

 

[Joe Weaks]

Thanks for responding, Helen. Your response sent me on a search, since your keystroke was operable. I forgot that I wrote a macro for morph tagging and had not delimited the scope only to BBEdit. I delimited the Macro and all is fine with the keystroke.

That'll do it. TextExpander or something, I take it?

[Anon]

That'll do it. TextExpander or something, I take it?

 

In this case, it was QuicKeys. I use QuicKeys for tags that require escape codes. (it doesn't type the text, but inserts it; I have had problems with the escape code when it is automated with a type process). I also use Typinator for expansion needs. I like both, but use QuicKeys more for morph tagging. Typinator is very handy for keying in texts, reducing possible scribal errors.

[Joe Weaks]

Good for you for using a savvy solution.

If you do all your tagging inside BBEdit, using scripts (Perl/Applescript) inside of BBedit would be the most robust.

Still, if you need to use a third party solution, QK is a good choice.

 

You know, I think TextMate would clearly be the absolute superior tagging environment of all time. You could code your own scope, actions, etc., but I am not aware of a single bible tagger who uses it. It does have a steep learning curve.

[Anon]

Good for you for using a savvy solution.

If you do all your tagging inside BBEdit, using scripts (Perl/Applescript) inside of BBedit would be the most robust.

Still, if you need to use a third party solution, QK is a good choice.

 

You know, I think TextMate would clearly be the absolute superior tagging environment of all time. You could code your own scope, actions, etc., but I am not aware of a single bible tagger who uses it. It does have a steep learning curve.

 

 

I would like to implement more Perl/Applescript material in my tagging. I am just learning the ropes of programming, and have purchased several books on Applescripts, Perl, and Python. I hope to eventually phase out QK. Once I learn more about programming and if more tagging opportunities arise, then I may take the time to learn TextMate. As of now, I am using Tex-Edit plus for its RTF capabilities. I have written numerous scripts to tag the information within a Tex-Edit document (i.e., for a certain Critical Apparatus).

 

What are your recommendations when it comes to learning Perl? Do you have any manuals you prefer?

 

Thanks!

 

 

[Joe Weaks]

What are your recommendations when it comes to learning Perl? Do you have any manuals you prefer?

I don't know if it's a good recommendation, but I'm a pretty decent Applescripter and can get by with Perl text manipulations, and all I've ever done is parse code to learn. One basic intro/tutorial and then google to find code that doe the kind of thing you're interested in and learn it.

 

Joe