[Geany-Users] Feature request: "Open all" (after "Find in files")

[Matthew Brush]

On 14-09-12 01:06 AM, Thomas Martitz wrote:
> Am 11.09.2014 13:38, schrieb Péter:
>> Lex Trotman wrote:
>>>> I can manually add the extra "-l" option to grep, but maybe it is
>>>> worth to
>>>> add a "only file names" checkbox too.
>>>
>>> You wouldn't need to do that, just ignore the line number in the
>>> message window.  Opening from clicking on the line in the message
>>> window already checks if the file is open and just switches to it
>>> without re-opening.
>>>
>>> Exactly where "open all files listed in the message window" menu item
>>> should go is debatable, but if a pull request was provided then that
>>> can be bikeshedded afterwards.
>>
>> I guess it may be a quite common procedure currently to:
>> 1. issue a "find in files" (with extra "-l" grep-option to achieve a
>> *lot* shorter list);
>> 2. keep pressed the "next message" until all files (with the searched
>> text in them) get opened;

Neat, I usually just scroll down the list of matches and click on a 
random match from each file to get it opened in Geany. Didn't think 
about -l option for grep to make it easier.

>> 3. issue a "replace all (in session, i.e. opened files)" command.
>>
>> The 2. point is cumbersome, ugly, and maybe error-prone (is it
>> guaranteed that no file will skipped? will it start from the first hit?).
>>
>
> You can do all of this in a single grep-sed combo without involving geany.
>

You can also edit text files without involving Geany :) I think the 
point was to do it in Geany.

> I guess if we wanted to have such a functionality inside Geany I would
> do it in a way which doesn't actually involve opening the files. Perhaps
> by calling sed (like we call grep for find in files).
>

At least for my use, I actually want the files all open in Geany, then 
maybe I'll do individual replace-in-file for each file or other edits on 
each file that contains matches. Just modifying some unknown group of 
potentially open or closed files en masse without any control or seeing 
the results wouldn't be very useful for the mentioned use-case, 
especially where the step #3 isn't a "replace-in-session" operation.

Cheers,
Matthew Brush