Additional Tagging & Reporting Tools

[boroda]

And no, the window doesn't enlarge vertically - the cursor changes (to "adjustable") when mousing over the top/bottom border, but it can't be dragged larger/smaller.

try this version:

https://www.mediafire.com/file/h2t08o9562efboi/mb_TagTools_latest.zip/file

[Messiaen]

That did it - the manual vertical adjustment works (and saves).  Thank you for the extra attention to this small detail.  An odd amount of trouble for 10 pixels (which, come to think of it, is suspiciously close to a DPI offset of the title-bar height windows adds to modals by subtracting from client-space).  Maybe Visual Studio is "helpfully" screwing around with newer versions of manifests for their UX additions again.

In any event, I appreciate it.    

[boroda]

ok. i'm glad that this is solved.

one minor enhancement: i've changed vertical maximized size of preset editor to last manually set restored vertical size (i mean that now this maximized window must not cut off ok/cancel buttons too).

https://www.mediafire.com/file/h2t08o9562efboi/mb_TagTools_latest.zip/file

[Messiaen]

now this maximized window must not cut off ok/cancel buttons too

The Devil is in the details - works as expected.

Speaking of details, in the description of the "Write result of virtual tag expression..." example preset, you put in the (English) description: "...If you want to pass a string to a function as is, you must put it in DOUBLE quotes."

Due to the vagaries of English, the _"_ symbol is actually called "double quotes", while the _'_ apostrophe symbol is "single quote".  So, when you say "put it in double quotes" you're actually just saying surround it in a single set of quotation marks, which is obviously the wrong syntax.

So, instead of "DOUBLE QUOTES" you should probably say something like "put it in two sets of double-quotes", or "double-double quotes", or even "quadruple quotes", though the last two are neither colloquially correct or properly descriptive.

I think originally you had an actual \@eval example in the description which showed the proper syntax, not just in the <Custom Text 1> slot, which can be overwritten by the user if they modify that text.  Including the example in the description was the simplest thing.

So, yeah, that's the long way of describing a silly detail.  Just a devilish suggestion.  God knows why English became the de facto internet standard - almost anything else would have probably been better.

[hiccup]

So, instead of "DOUBLE QUOTES" you should probably say something like "put it in two sets of double-quotes", or "double-double quotes", or even "quadruple quotes", though the last two are neither colloquially correct or properly descriptive.

A not-native English speaker here.

These suggestions sound very weird to me.
It might make some sense if AT&RT was saying 'in two quotes', but it says 'in double quotes'.
Perhaps change 'in' to 'between', but still in my mind it will be clear to anyone and will not cause any confusion.
The term 'double quotes' is plural, so I would think it is obvious there need to be two double quotes.

[Messiaen]

The term 'double quotes' is plural, so I would think it is obvious there need to be two double quotes.

It's NOT actually plural in this sense.  A quoted phrase is "enquotated" between two single-"double quote" characters, so "put it in quotes" and "put it in double-quotes" actually mean exactly the same thing.  (Trust me, they really are the same.)  Theoretically, you would technically say "enclosed with double-enquotation", but that's even weirderererer!

Putting something in two sets of double-quotes is never grammatically correct in English (or probably any other language), so it doesn't really have a description.  (A "quotation within a quotation" would use single-quotes [Apostrophe's] inside the outside double-quotes.)

By the way, the suggestions sound weird to me too (and I am a native speaker), that's why I included the long-winded explanation.

[hiccup]

A quoted phrase is "enquotated" between two single-"double quote" characters, so "put it in quotes" and "put it in double-quotes" actually mean exactly the same thing.

So to you 'between quotes' and 'between double quotes' is the same thing?

edit
To prevent time being wasted on some purely academical issue, could you give a link to a real-world example where somebody misunderstood the term 'double quotes', used two single quotes and couldn't figure it out?

(if such an example actually exists, the person involved will and shouldn't be using neither MusicBee nor AT&RT)

[Messiaen]

Yes, because the "double" in "double quotes" is descriptive, not literal.  To be literal, you'd still have to say double-double-quotes, which would then mean 8 apostrophes (single quotes), or 4 double-quotes.  Yuck!

[hiccup]

Yes, because the "double" in "double quotes" is descriptive, not literal.  To be literal, you'd still have to say double-double-quotes, which would then mean 8 apostrophes (single quotes), or 4 double-quotes.  Yuck!

I specifically wrote 'between double'.

You can't really put anything between a singular thing can you? (Between a rock and hard place, etc.)
I can not imagine saying 'between double' indicating you should put something between single quotes.
It's like saying the exact same thing twice. Both 'between' and 'double' indicate 2 items.
I'm sure there is an English word for such a grammatical error.
Something is 'between quotes' or 'between double quotes'. Seems clear enough (and correct) to me.

[Messiaen]

To prevent time being wasted on some purely academical issue, could you give a link to a real-world example where somebody misunderstood the term 'double quotes', used two single quotes and couldn't figure it out?

Well, technically, by even bringing this issue up in the first place, I myself am the perfect example.  I don't interpret words literally, I interpret them figuratively.  A non-native speaker in any language would "probably" interpret literally, so from that point of view you're "accidentally correct", if that makes any sense.

I'm not trying to be difficult - it just seems to come naturally to me.  And yes, this issue is silly, but we've already had one user in this thread (above) who was tripped-up by the new syntax, so for anyone reading the description, it's important. (I guess.)

I can not imagine that to be a correct phrasing of putting something between single quotes.

No, I am not related to that other user (whatever his name was) who caused you such a tizzy last week.  

Putting something between single quotes would mean printing it as 'hello'.
Putting something between double quotes would mean printing it as "hello".

So yeah, clarity is not the friend of English!

[hiccup]

so from that point of view you're "accidentally correct",

In my language I would be correct both accidentally and on purpose.

We call something such as 'between double' a grammatical style error. We call it a tautology.
(I used G-translate for that word)
Perhaps the English language should adapt that concept? ;-)
(or maybe it is some hood vs. trunk thingy?)

(apologies to Boroda for somewhat derailing here, but I am guessing he will excuse us and finds the matter mildly interesting)

[Messiaen]

There's an old joke that is often used to show why the element of Aristotelian-logic called a Syllogism (a major and a minor premise followed by a conclusion) is flawed:

A man reads in a newspaper that the odds of someone bringing a bomb onto an airplane are 100,000 to 1, but the odds on 2 people bringing bombs onto the same plane are 100 million to 1.  He thinks to himself, reasoning (incorrectly) that if two bombs has the higher odds, "If I bring my own bomb onto the plane the odds are much better that I will be safer!"

Tautology is a rigorous logic where something is "always true" which is best suited to the language of mathematics, not natural human language, which is poetically messy, even when trying to be simple.  Reminds me of the old adage about the so-called Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - which sounds like a great idea until you realise that masochists use the same language as everyone else, but not with the same meaning.

I'm not trying to be flippant (and I too apologise for going way off-topic).  I just brought it up as a suggestion to making the plugin instructions clearer!  Guess I failed this time.  

[hiccup]

There's an old joke that is often used to show why the element of Aristotelian-logic called a Syllogism

Thanks for that write-up. Funny and interesting, and food for the grey cells for sure.
(it really seems like a brilliant suggestion to bring a bomb aboard an airplane. It's now on my what-to-pack list. Thanks!)

But what I meant by throwing 'tautology' into the ring was simply to make a comparison between "between double" and somebody saying "a big enormity".
Let's await some certified English professor to lift a glove?

[Messiaen]

Too late to mention that I was an English major in University?  Probably why I changed to Philosophy afterwards before just dropping out and looking for Godot.  Hmm.  Are you a fan of Free-Jazz?  When I was younger I used to dismiss it as noisy nonsense, but as I get older I begin to find pleasure in the challenge of it.  Mayhap I have become the masochist, and it's all John Coltrane's fault!  

[phred]

Let's keep this thread on topic please. If you wish to continue discussion double-quotes, please take it to "Beyond Music Bee"  and I'll split this off and merge it there.

The management thanks you.