Relative Depth:+level

[horst.epp]

Sometimes starting in a very deep structure it would help if I can specify an relative depth level.
So depth:+1 would mean the current level and one sub-dir level.
______________________________________________________
Windows 11 Home x64 Version 22H2 (OS Build 22621.755)
Everything 1.5.0.1326a (x64)

[void]

I'm trying to understand what path you want the relative depth to search.

Would you want the relative depth to be based on the path in your search:

C:\windows\ depth:+1

Are you looking for Everything to search in C:\Windows and immediate subfolders only?



This would have to be somewhat smart so you can search for:
c:\windows\|c:\users\bob\desktop depth:+1



Are you using the folder sidebar?



I'm thinking of adding a search function to do this:

depth+1:c:\windows
(find files in C:\windows or in an immediate subfolder under c:\windows)

depth+1:<c:\windows|c:\users\bob\desktop>
(find files in C:\windows or in an immediate subfolder under c:\windows or c:\users\bob\desktop or an immediate subfolder under c:\users\bob\desktop)

would this be helpful?

[horst.epp]

Yes, I would like this search enhancements.
Using the folder sidebar is not applicable.
I want this search enhancements for usage inside of Total Commander and XYplorer.

[NotNull]

@Horst:

are you looking for:
- exact n levels deeper
- max n levels deeper
- minimal n levels deeper

- all / some / none of the above?

[horst.epp]

@Horst:

are you looking for:
- exact n levels deeper
- max n levels deeper
- minimal n levels deeper

- all / some / none of the above?

For me max n lever deeper is the only usefull version.

[raccoon]

I've recently been thinking about something similar in nature, but perhaps approached in a different way.

I would like to bind the object Name column to include some levels of parent folders, and thereby remove those levels from the Path column. Those parent folders become part of the object's name for all intents and purposes. This can be 1 or 2 or 3... parent folders, or it could be all child folders anchored from a given path [or paths]. The results list would look something like this.

Code: Select all

["C:\Users\" ntuser relative:-1]
Name                          | Path
--------------------------------------------------------------
All Users\ntuser.pol          | C:\Users
Default\NTUSER.DAT            | C:\Users
me\ntuser.dat                 | C:\Users
me\ntuser.ini                 | C:\Users

Such results will help with Advanced Rename, as well as copy/move operations to preserve folder structures of selected objects.

[void]

I'll consider a relative:x search.

Thank you for the suggestion.

For now, what about:

c:\users\ ntuser -addcolumn:col1 col1:=basename(pathpart(fullpath:))\basename(fullpath:)

[horst.epp]

I'll consider a relative:x search.

Thank you for the suggestion.

For now, what about:

c:\users\ ntuser -addcolumn:col1 col1:=basename(pathpart(fullpath:))\basename(fullpath:)

That gives me more than the level of dirs I want to see.

[void]

That gives me more than the level of dirs I want to see.

Yes, this is expected.
This was in reply to raccoon's suggestion.

[void]

Everything 1.5.0.1328a adds a parent+x: search function.

For example:

parent+1:c:\windows

Will show files/folders that are one folder deep under the specified folder.



Do I need a depth+1: alias here?
I switched to parent+x: internally as parent+0: is exactly the same as parent:



parent+1:c:\windows is also the same as:

c:\windows\*\*



Do I need to add support for ranges?
I'm not sure about the syntax yet..
parent+>=1:c:\windows
parent+0..2:c:\windows

Currently, you'll need to use the following:

parent:c:\windows | parent+1:c:\windows | parent+2:c:\windows

[froggie]

Just a question, not a request.

Does parent+1: require a full path after it by design? parent+1:\windows does not give any results. I thought it might be the same as \windows\*\*, but it is not.

[void]

Does parent+1: require a full path after it by design?

Yes an absolute path is required.