Regular Expressions also result in an easy solution.
I tinkered together two of them in just a couple of minutes.
It took more time to make the dummy text files.
Down to earth and easy to cure straight through the eyes.
Regular Expressions also result in an easy solution.
I tinkered together two of them in just a couple of minutes.
It took more time to make the dummy text files.
Down to earth and easy to cure straight through the eyes.
My statements/screen captures aren't overt challenges to the DO community to determine if files can be renamed with DO - I certainly acknowledge that they can (especially via RegEx statements). My "lens" that I am looking through is for a beginner to intermediate computer user to achieve the desired result. The TC design model makes it easy for nearly anyone to rename files/folders because (a) their adoption of placeholders that make sense and (b) the use of droplists of placeholder variations make it a click-and-shoot process to build the rename criteria. I challenge your children/spouse to build the DO expressions you captured in your screen captures to rename the files - because I would personally struggle to come up with them, and I've used PCs since 1987 and have 8 programming languages under my belt.
My original goal with my first post was to have the DO developers take a step sideways and look at this feature from the perspective of a non-power user who doesn't have the time/experience/desire to learn scripting languages, complex and non-intuitive expressions and/or RegEx to rename files on their PC... and I provided examples of several file managers that IMO came up with an easier mousetrap for consideration. With that said, I'm going to admit defeat that I'm not going to gain traction on this discussion, and I will have to use other file management software on my systems to rename data. DO is an astonishingly powerful tool, with a LOT of features that I thoroughly enjoy and leverage... that I will use for very specific tasks that don't include renaming data, as its paradigm (for me) is unnecessarily complex.
I'm going to close this thread because it's clear you aren't interested in engaging with the comments others have made. Not sure what your agenda is but continuing this seems counterproductive.