WIth the exception of the full stop which is a special character for regular expressions it worked absolutely as designed.
The problem is as follows:
If you use "regular expressions" it is expected that there is a regular pattern to be treated like "any text followed by a number".
In your case you simply replace one constant text with another constant text. There is no regular pattern.
The only problem I see is some kind of laziness to create an action for each pair of search and replace terms and a proper list of fields.
_ALL is rather dangerous IMHO as there are albums around that have "Featuring" in the name and I would not want to get them modified by such a routine.
You say, you chose
I would like to see the syntay you used for this action. If you entered
"ft. |f. |featuring |feat "
as search string, it is absolutely clear that this will hardly ever find any matches as I do not know any title where you find this total string with bar characters in it.
If you created a single replace action with
Search string: ft.
Replace string: feat.
It would have worked.
If you want to use a regular expression and look at the word only, you would have to supply criteria that tell the expression where a word starts. Is it a space character? A bracket? Punctuation?
You would have to add these separators to your regular expression which would lead to just as much effort as writing single simple replace actions.
But hasn't a similar problem been discussed with you already in
Thank you both for your replies. I see exactly what you mean.
[ohrenkino] Your explanation makes perfect sense and I see where I have got into difficulties as a result. It's a lack of understanding the difference between how a standard replace and regex replace works and must contain diifferent formatting.
I think that the best approach would be individual standard replacements as you have suggested and restricting to filename, title and artist fields to be safe.
I think that the tool [LyricsLover] has mentioned will really help me understand what is going on, that being said, looking back at the Replay gain code thread referred to does remind me of the useful diagram posted before.
I have overcomplicated the matter by misunderstanding the correct usage of either function and how they respond to input.