Search++: A work in progress

Alan Kilborn

In regards to:

Further testing suggests that Ctrl+Shift+0 does not work as a shortcut when assigned to any command. I haven’t yet checked to see if this is a known issue

Maybe see this:
https://community.notepad-plus-plus.org/post/90173
or some of the other postings about Ctrl+Shift+0 in that topic.

Coises

@Alan-Kilborn said in Search++: A work in progress:

In regards to:

Further testing suggests that Ctrl+Shift+0 does not work as a shortcut when assigned to any command. I haven’t yet checked to see if this is a known issue

Maybe see this:
https://community.notepad-plus-plus.org/post/90173
or some of the other postings about Ctrl+Shift+0 in that topic.

Thank you, Alan. Good that someone still has memory cells working. (@guy038 and I were both in that discussion, and it seems neither of us remembered.)

Similar to what it sounds like happened to Guy in that thread, I attempted to reset all shortcuts for keyboard languages to None even though they already were all None, except for the last one, which had Ctrl+Space associated with something to do with IME and Chinese (probably came about when I was testing Columns++ search in double byte character sets). I changed it to None (repeatedly), but it changed itself back as soon as I OK’d the change.

None-the-less, even though no visible setting has changed, now Ctrl+Shift+0 works. No rhyme or reason to this corner of Windows, it seems. :-(

guy038

Hi, @alan-kilborn, @coises and All,

Many thanks @alan-kilborn, for solving the Ctrl + Shift + 0 not working at all ;-)) I completely forgot this old post. Like @coises, I confirm that your memory cells are working perfectly !

So, certainly, on my Windows 10 laptop, with your precious advice, I was able to solve this bug, in October 2023. But, it happens that I migrated my laptop to Windows 11, at the end of October 2025. And I supposed that this migration reset a lot of parameters, whose this one !

Thank you again for helping us find the right post !

Best Regards,

guy038

Coises

@guy038 said in Search++: A work in progress:

-Then use the Tools > Marked text → Selections option

=> The 4 lines are ALSO selected
Run a Ctrl + C action to put this selection in the clipboard

Then, run a Ctrl + V action => The clipboard wrongly contains the string ABCDE
So, despite of the Tools > Marked text → Selections action, nothing can be copied !?

I wrote:

After clicking on a button in a dialog, keyboard focus is on the button. (That’s standard Windows behavior, which I have not attempted to change in this case.) Your Ctrl+C went to the button. You needed to return focus to the document (e.g., Ctrl+N) before you could copy the selection.

That is true, but there is also a flaw in Marked text → Selections that causes an extra, empty selection to be included at the beginning, which could cause unexpected results when pasting.

A new version will be coming, but probably not until sometime tomorrow. Thank you for all your feedback.

Coises

@guy038 said in Search++: A work in progress:

Choose the Select > Select Before in Whole Document or the Select Before option

=> No message and no matches ??

[…]

-Then use the Tools > Marked text → Selections option

=> The 4 lines are ALSO selected

Run a Ctrl + C action to put this selection in the clipboard

Version 0.5.1 fixes the Before/After bug and adds some new commands to the Tools button menu; Copy Marked Text should avoid the need to make a selection from marked text just to copy it.

There are a few other small changes that hopefully are improvements.

guy038

Hello @alan-kilborn, @Coises and All,

Yesterday, I was pretty sure the bug had been fixed. Unfortunately, today, perhaps because I needed to re-start my laptop for other reasons, the bug is still here !

Of course, I re-ran the @alan-kilborn’s solution but without success
I tried to delete then re-assign the Ctrl + Shift + 0 shortcut to the Previous style of Find Mark style command within N++ => Not better
I turned my laptop off and then back on but no chance, either
I also visit the two sites, below, to get some tools to deternine which process could own the Ctrl + Shift + 0 shortcut => No result

https://www.nirsoft.net/utils/hot_keys_list.html

https://github.com/ITachiLab/hotkey-detective

Note that once Hotkeydetective.exe has been launched with administator rights, it is said to press the stolen key in order that the software shows you a path to the guilty process. However, hitting the Ctrl + Shift + 0 shortcut does not show any line, personally !

Finally, I had the idea of simply changing the Ctrl * Shift + 0 shortcut to Ctrl * Shift + 6. And… bingo, this change worked nicely !

Thus, doing the same thing for the Ctrl + 0 shortcut seems a possible solution to this problem !

BR

guy038

P.S. :

After using this work-around, I tried to assign the Ctrl + Shift + 0 shortcut to a command without shortcut, like the View > Summary... command. But it does not show the Summarize dialog :-((

In contrast, the shortcut Ctrl + 0, which is no longer used, displays the control character 0, as I did not check the Settings > Preferences... > Editing2 > Prevent control character (C0 code) typing into document option. Thus no need of the Control Panel feature in order to type the NUL character anymore !

guy038

Hello, @coises,

First, thanks for the Select Before/After fix ! Now, the new Copy Marked Text options, with the separator choice, are really practical and straightforward

Regarding the Tools > Select Marked Text option ( formely Marked text → Selections ), we need to do a Ctrl + N action, to replace focus on current document first, before doing a Ctrl + C action

Regarding the Enhance clearing behavior, I suppose that you mean :

If current document already contains some selections, based on a previous search

OR

If current document already contains some marked text, based on a previous search

OR

If current document already contains some invisible lines and some visible lines, based on a previous search

=> The appearance of current document does not changed if present search does not find any match ( => previous selections are kept, previous marks are kept and no other lines are hidden )

Of course, this makes sense !

This still one point that’s a bit unclear to me : what is the fundamental difference between all these options, when compared in pairs :

Find                         vs        Find in Whole Document
Find Backward                vs        Find Backward in Whole Document


Count                        vs        Count in Whole Document
Count Before                 vs        Count Before in Whole Document
Count After                  vs        Count After in Whole Document


Find All Before              vs        Find All Before in Whole Document
Find All After               vs        Find All After in Whole Document

Select Before                vs        Select Before in Whole Document
Select After                 vs        Select After in Whole Document

Mark Before                  vs        Mark Before in Whole Document
Mark After                   vs        Mark After in Whole Document

Show Before                  vs        Show Before in Whole Document
Show After                   vs        Show After in Whole Document


Replace and Find             vs        Replace And Find in Whole Document
Replace and Find Backward    vs        Replace and Find Backward in Whole Document

Find or Replace              vs        Find or Replace in Whole Document
Find Backward or Replace     vs        Find Backward or Replace in Whole Document


Replace All                  vs        Replace All in Whole Document
Replace All Before           vs        Replace All Before in Whole Document
Replace All Aftrt            vs        Replace All After in Whole Document

Best Regards,

guy038

Coises

@guy038 said in Search++: A work in progress:

This still one point that’s a bit unclear to me : what is the fundamental difference between all these options, when compared in pairs :

The principle (see the last bullet point under help for search scopes) is that commands which don’t specify a scope search in marked text if there is any; otherwise, in the current selection if it is not empty; otherwise, in the whole document. That’s subject to the Settings: if you unchecked both Automatically search within selections and Automatically search within marked text, then all the pairs of commands you listed would be identical; and there are the limits on when selections are considered “large enough” to trigger search within selection. (A selection that is the immediate result of a stepwise search never causes the same search to search within that selection no matter how large it is.)

There are two special cases, and a third questionable feature, also involved:

There are no Before or After commands with in Selection scope. (My logic is that something can’t be both in the selection and before or after it.) So search commands that include Before or After can only be in Marked Text or in Whole Document.
Mark commands that don’t specify a scope don’t automatically scope to in Marked Text even if Automatically search within marked text is enabled. What happens is that unless you’ve checked Always unmark all text before Mark command, default Mark commands add to existing marks. I know this is a different behavior from selections, but I think because selections are so volatile, and marks are not, it is natural to use them in different ways. Should this exception be an option in Settings? I’m inclined to add it as a default-checked sub-option of Automatically search within marked text.
Search commands that specify in Selection or in Marked Text search the whole document if there is no (non-empty) selection or marked text. I’m questioning the sense of that now. I’m thinking that if the user specifies “in selection” or ”in marked text,” and there is none, the search should fail with a message like “No marked text to search” rather than silently discarding the specified scope.

Thoughts about that logic, especially point 3 (which I am inclined to change in the next release) are welcome and encouraged.

I have tried to keep as much “symmetry” as I could, to make it all more comprehensible. I think it is possible that I have created some nonsense in practice.

Points 1 and 3 together mean that Before and After commands without a scope are either the same as Before/After in Marked Text if Automatically search within marked text is checked, or the same as Before/After in Whole Document if it isn’t. However, as I wrote, I’m questioning point 3; without that, when the relevant setting is checked, there would be a difference (the commands that don’t specify a scope would switch between in Marked Text and in Whole Document depending on whether there was any marked text in the document, whereas neither command that specified one scope would switch to the other).

So… looking at the full list you gave, group by group, assuming default settings… this is what is supposed to happen (full testing of every possible case has not been done):

Find                         vs        Find in Whole Document
Find Backward                vs        Find Backward in Whole Document

The two on the left will find the next match in marked text following or preceding the current position or selection if any text is marked; otherwise they will find the first or last match in the selected text if “enough” text is selected; otherwise they will find the next match following or preceding the current position or selection in the whole document. Those on the right will always find the next match following or preceding the current position or selection in the whole document regardless of whether any text is marked or selected.

Count                        vs        Count in Whole Document

Count will count only matches in marked text if any text is marked; otherwise it will count only matches in selected text if “enough” text is selected; otherwise it will count all matches in the whole document. Count in Whole Document will always count all matches in the whole document regardless of whether any text is marked or selected.

Count Before                 vs        Count Before in Whole Document
Count After                  vs        Count After in Whole Document

The two on the left will count only matches in marked text that are before or after the current position or selection if any text is marked; otherwise they will count matches before or after the current position or selection in the whole document. Those on the right will always count matches before or after the current position or selection in the whole document regardless of whether any text is marked.

Find All Before              vs        Find All Before in Whole Document
Find All After               vs        Find All After in Whole Document

The two on the left will list only matches in marked text that are before or after the current position or selection if any text is marked; otherwise they will list all matches before or after the current position or selection in the whole document. Those on the right will always list all matches before or after the current position or selection in the whole document regardless of whether any text is marked.

Select Before                vs        Select Before in Whole Document
Select After                 vs        Select After in Whole Document

The two on the left will select only matches in marked text that are before or after the current position or selection if any text is marked; otherwise they will select all matches before or after the current position or selection in the whole document. Those on the right will always select all matches before or after the current position or selection in the whole document regardless of whether any text is marked.

Mark Before                  vs        Mark Before in Whole Document
Mark After                   vs        Mark After in Whole Document

I’ll double-check my logic later, but I think these are identical, since (1 above) Before/After can’t be in selection, and (2 above) Mark doesn’t automatically scope to marked text. It’s unclear to me which ones to remove, since either choice breaks the symmetry and could be confusing to users, but having two commands that do the same thing is also confusing.

Show Before                  vs        Show Before in Whole Document
Show After                   vs        Show After in Whole Document

I grant that this would be a strange use of Show. In the circumstance where there are hidden lines both before and after the current position or selection, and there is some marked text in document, the ones on the left would search only marked text before or after the current position or selection for lines to unhide, while the ones on the right would search all text.

Replace and Find             vs        Replace And Find in Whole Document
Replace and Find Backward    vs        Replace and Find Backward in Whole Document

Find or Replace              vs        Find or Replace in Whole Document
Find Backward or Replace     vs        Find Backward or Replace in Whole Document

Replace All                  vs        Replace All in Whole Document
Replace All Before           vs        Replace All Before in Whole Document
Replace All After            vs        Replace All After in Whole Document

These are like their Find and Find All counterparts. The ones on the left work like “in Marked Text” if any text is marked; otherwise, like “in Selection” if “enough” text is selected; otherwise like “in Whole Document” (like the ones on the right).

Coises

@guy038 said in Search++: A work in progress:

This still one point that’s a bit unclear to me : what is the fundamental difference between all these options, when compared in pairs :

[…]

Count Before                 vs        Count Before in Whole Document
Count After                  vs        Count After in Whole Document

Find All Before              vs        Find All Before in Whole Document
Find All After               vs        Find All After in Whole Document

Select Before                vs        Select Before in Whole Document
Select After                 vs        Select After in Whole Document

Mark Before                  vs        Mark Before in Whole Document
Mark After                   vs        Mark After in Whole Document

Show Before                  vs        Show Before in Whole Document
Show After                   vs        Show After in Whole Document

[…]

Replace All Before           vs        Replace All Before in Whole Document
Replace All Aftrt            vs        Replace All After in Whole Document

Now that I think about it some more, it seems like I could simplify this by removing all the Before and After search commands that don’t include a scope (in Selection, in Marked Text or in Whole Document). I don’t think anyone is going to want to make a before or after command the one-click action for a button; and otherwise, once you have to select from a menu anyway, why not select what you mean instead of selecting something that’s going to infer what you want?

Thanks again, Guy, for looking at this so carefully and pointing out the confusing and redundant parts.

If no one thinks it’s a bad idea, I’ll probably remove the unscoped Before and After searches in the next release.

guy038

Hi, @coises and All,

@coises, I read carefully your last two posts and many thanks for all your explanations !

Regarding your point #3 :

You said :

I’m questioning the sense of that now. I’m thinking that if the user specifies “in selection” or ”in marked text,” and there is none, the search should fail with a message like “No marked text to search”

Indeed, it quite disturbing for example that, when no selection and no marked text exists, the Count in selection or Count in Marked Text options still return all the matches of current document ! Give it a try, searching for the insensitive word fix within the last change.log file ( You should get 32 matches ! )

So I support your idea that, in this specific case, the search should fail with the message No marked text to search or No selection to search

Regarding your point #1 :

I totally understand your logic. This make sense !

Regarding your point #2

You began with :

Mark commands that don’t specify a scope …

Are we agree that you’re speaking about the Mark Before and Mark after options ONLY ? Presently, as you said, these two commands, not restricted to a scope, search throughout all file contents.

Now, as expressed in your very last post, I do support your idea to avoid any command, containing Before or After, that do not include a scope ( in Selection, in marked Text and in Whole Document ). Thus, that should solve automatically this problem ;-))

One question :

Let’s suppose the v8.9.3 change.log in a tab
Now, enter the regex (?si) 1.+?(?=^\R) in the Search dialog
Click on the ▼, after the defeautl Find All option
Run the Mark > Mark in Whole Document option

=> Message : Marked 4 matches

Now, with the (?si) 1.+?(?=^\R) regex still present in the Find dialog
Run the Mark > Mark in Marked Text option

=> We get the message No matches found in marked text. Is this coherent, @coises ?. To my mind, I was expecting the message 4 matches in marked text !

Of course, I know that, normally, I should have changed the search, in between ! For example :

Write the (?i)fix regex, in the Find dialog
Run again the Mark > Mark in Marked Text option

=> The fix word, whatever its case, is now marked, from all the previous marked regions, ONLY !

You’ll note that the fix string within all the lines beginning with Notepad++, which were not concerned by the previous search, are not marked, as expected !

Regarding the Remove marks from all open documents and Remove marks from documents in this view options, in the Tools dialog :

Could you move them to an other place of the Tools dialog, in order to not be close to the Remove marks from active document option, that we’ll probably use more often ?

OR :

Could you add a confirmation dialog for these two specific options ?

Best regards

guy038

Coises

@guy038 said in Search++: A work in progress:

Regarding your point #2

You began with :

Mark commands that don’t specify a scope …

Are we agree that you’re speaking about the Mark Before and Mark after options ONLY ? Presently, as you said, these two commands, not restricted to a scope, search throughout all file contents.

It applies to the plain Mark command, too. If there is a non-empty selection (that’s “large enough” per Settings), Mark will perform Mark in Selection (not possible for Mark Before and Mark After). But none of the three will perform Mark […] in Marked Text; that has to be selected explicitly. The same isn’t true for Select; if there is an existing selection (large enough), Select will perform Select in selection. What I was thinking is that perhaps this difference between Mark and Select should be “explained” by having an additional setting for each action, enabled only when Automatically search within {selections | marked text} is checked, that controls whether the matching command is an exception (that is, Select doesn’t perform Selection in Selection, or Mark doesn’t perform Mark in Marked Text). The current behavior would have the “except Select” box unchecked and the “except Mark” box checked.

It comes down to: What do you want to do when you say Select and there’s already a selection, or you say Mark and there’s already marked text? Do you replace the existing selection or marks? add to them? or search within them?

And when I put it that way… I have to think this through some more. From a user’s perspective, the Settings I have are too difficult to figure out. I’m having trouble getting a clear picture of what settings make sense with what other settings and I wrote the damn thing. :-(

Now, as expressed in your very last post, I do support your idea to avoid any command, containing Before or After, that do not include a scope ( in Selection, in marked Text and in Whole Document ). Thus, that should solve automatically this problem ;-))

It would get rid of some of the problem, but not all of it. Where I’m stuck is that I really want there to be “adaptive” commands (the plain Count, Find All, etc.) that recognize when the user would want to search in a selection or in marked text, so they can be the one-click action on a button. Alas, there’s that fundamental design flaw in all computers thus far produced: the RUM (“read user’s mind”) instruction was never implemented. It could be that making an appropriate guess is hopeless. But I really don’t want an oversized, cluttered interface with a matrix of 20 buttons, and I really don’t want users to have to select operations they use often or repeatedly from button menus. So, at least for a while, I’m going to keep trying.

I appreciate your feedback on these issues very much. Anything you, or anyone, can tell me about what works smoothly and what is difficult to use or doesn’t work as expected is helpful.

Now, enter the regex (?si) 1.+?(?=^\R) in the Search dialog

Click on the ▼, after the defeautl Find All option

Run the Mark > Mark in Whole Document option

=> Message : Marked 4 matches

Now, with the (?si) 1.+?(?=^\R) regex still present in the Find dialog

Run the Mark > Mark in Marked Text option

=> We get the message No matches found in marked text. Is this coherent, @coises ?. To my mind, I was expecting the message 4 matches in marked text !

I did document this, but it’s easily missed:

For a regular expression search, each run of marked text is searched independently; the search in any span of marked text cannot “see” outside that span. This affects the behavior of assertions (including word boundaries, lookaheads and lookbehinds, ^ and $).

The search in Columns++ has the same limitation. I couldn’t figure out a practical way to make it work other than this way.

Regarding the Remove marks from all open documents and Remove marks from documents in this view options, in the Tools dialog :

Could you move them to an other place of the Tools dialog, in order to not be close to the Remove marks from active document option, that we’ll probably use more often ?

OR :

Could you add a confirmation dialog for these two specific options ?

I will work out something so they won’t be easily clicked by accident.