Provide a case-conversion rule

Andrew · 2009-02-14 11:04

Look, personal issues aside, you keep attacking ReNamer saying various aspects are 'illogical'. Funny how hundreds (if not thousands) of users so far have not found it so. We were newbies once too (and there's still lots to learn, of course), but we found our way around the app quickly enough. There's nothing special or great about this - given enough time and effort, I believe anyone can. In all my comments so far I have thus been giving my opinion about the so-called 'illogical' features that ReNamer seems to sport according to you. If you find that offensive, well I can't really help it.

narayan wrote:

And WHY should I waste time figuring it out? Am I not entitled to treating this application as a black box and use it? Must I tinker with its innards?

Except for the fact that, in order to use the app as you yourself want to, an exploration of the options is necessary. For example, you wanted an auto-preview feature that already existed. You treated it as a black box and didn't bother to confirm whether such a feature existed or not. Ok, you don't want to delve into the options, fine. But when Denis pointed out that the option exists, wouldn't you have to go into that dreaded settings dialog to turn it on? So where's that artificial distinction of only employing a black box approach gone now?

Besides, you're dealing with external scripts here. These are, by definition, not entirely Denis' concern. Any help provided for user-written scripts is out of courtesy and not an obligation. It is up to the user to put in the effort necessary to get it working. In such a scenario, a black box approach just does not work. You have to get your hands dirty to some extent at least if you want your scripts to run to your satisfaction and to solve what is essentially your problem. People here can just point you in the right direction, that is it.

den4b wrote:

narayan, it doesn't look like you really know RegEx, Java and C++ as you say, because if you would - you wouldn't have most of these problems/questions...

Andrew wrote:

narayan, if you really know RegEx, Java and C++ like you claim to do, then frankly IMO you ought to be able to figure out any problems with the script quite easily.

So, what is it you find offensive about this? And how exactly is what I said different from what Denis did? On the internet, you have to learn to have a thick skin. If you call the above offensive, I don't know how you'll respond when someone really says something offensive to you...

narayan wrote:

Similarly, the most logical place to edit a rule is NOT from the "Rules" pane.

We have a rule in this forum (that I too learnt after someone pointed it out to me) - do not mix multiple issues in one thread. This thread is about your case conversion rule. If you want Denis to change how the Edit Rule function operates, kindly start a new thread in the Suggestions section of the forum, and then let's see what Denis says about it. He is the final judge after all!

Finally, back to the issue at hand. I replied to your "there's an error in the script!" post with one that shows that the script seems to be fine. You have not replied to that as to whether you're still getting that error or not, for as I suspect it was a mistake running the script on your part. If you've now managed to run it properly, let's consider this thread closed, for you've accomplished what you set out to do.

narayan · 2009-02-14 19:39

Andrew,

There is a difference between addressing the issue and castigating a person. So while I am giving suggestions, you are confronting ME. (The same applies to Denis, too.) And more importantly, you should not try to hit back by questioning my diligence, knowledge, etc. The forum is sullied by such exchanges; and becomes more difficult to search.

*************

As a matter of fact, I hold ReNamer in very high esteem; and have described it as a "gem" in a forum for a shareware. I am going to list ReNamer as the recommended mass-renamer in the next version of its User Manual.

But that does not mean that I find everything "just perfect". If it is so perfect, then why do you have a "suggestions" forum at all?

If the thousands of ReNamer users are happy, so am I!

Was I referring to a particular vexing problem? NO.
Was it for a minor improvement? Yes.
Was I interested in a work-around? No- I already knew them ALL.

So does that amount to an "attack" on ReNamer? No.
So why is there a disproportionately strong, personalized attack?

*****
If you see iPod reviews, the reviewers pan it routinely for missing out several features. Even then, its users are already happy with the current version. So are those reviewers wrong? No!

Any improvement will only enhance that happiness of the customers who are already happy.

And so it is with ReNamer also. So why can't we take this as constructive criticism?

*********
I missed some features because I was not expecting them at those places logically. It is not because I treated that as a black box; or because I did not read the manual. I did.

*********
The maximum value of a forum is in making the knowledge available to ALL users.
(And remember, some of the users are not tech-savvy.)
* If I apply more effort, I will get the answer, but it will remain with me.
* If you share a ready answer, the knowledge is there for anyone to take.

So which approach is more preferable?

Note that I have already proposed to create a words-list for the others.
So I do not want to shirk from contributing.

Andrew · 2009-02-14 19:57

narayan wrote:

So while I am giving suggestions, you are confronting ME. (The same applies to Denis, too.)

Neither Denis nor I are in any way obligated to help you with your problems. Since Denis is the author of the program, he unfortunately cannot escape completely from his users, though sometimes he may wish that were the case. Anyway, no more confrontations from now on from my side at least, you may be rest assured of that, for this is really grating and I couldn't care less. I'm sure people will enjoy your word list a lot, so enjoy yourself and go break a leg.

narayan · 2009-02-15 10:23

krtek, you are right. I did NOT use those magic words.

I indeed thank Denis for making such a fantastic tool available so generously. As I have already mentioned (but belatedly in the discussion), I have praised ReNamer elsewhere in highest possible terms, and I do believe it is a fantastic piece of software.

And I was not demanding anything. If it appeared like that and evoked a sharp response from Dennis, I apologize for that misunderstanding.

BTW I also read Denis' post on how he started all these projects, how pressed for time he is and almost stopped going last year. That he continued supporting the projects despite such a heavy burden on his personal life speaks volumes about his good self.

So thanks all and God bless.

P.S. I can help with a very good quality manual (As I mentioned earlier, I do wish to help the other users in my own way). But I will post separately about that- I respect what Andrews says: One topic in one thread.

Last edited by narayan (2009-02-15 10:44)

krtek · 2009-02-15 10:51

narayan,
Things goes to quick for me. Just after posting, I found Andrews thread http://www.den4b.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=2891, which I found better place to post. So I've deleted my post just to move it there... and at the same time you answered on it...

But now, when we got clearance, I won't get that post back to life. Let it stay in non-existance...

If you have some time, a good manual would be really precious. Thanks in advance.

Last edited by krtek (2009-02-15 10:53)

narayan · 2009-02-15 11:32

Sure! I'd prefer someone to delete this entire thread. As it turns out, we simply used the script verbatim from the other thread. So there is no new learning for new visitors in this thread. The rest of it is best forgotten.

Thanks for your effort, krtek; and I do look forward to doing some good work alongside you.

Last edited by narayan (2009-02-15 11:33)

den4b Forum

#21 2009-02-14 11:04

Re: Provide a case-conversion rule

#22 2009-02-14 19:39

Re: Provide a case-conversion rule

#23 2009-02-14 19:57

Re: Provide a case-conversion rule

#24 2009-02-15 10:23

Re: Provide a case-conversion rule

#25 2009-02-15 10:51

Re: Provide a case-conversion rule

#26 2009-02-15 11:32

Re: Provide a case-conversion rule

Board footer