AutoHotkey Community

It is currently May 24th, 2012, 2:58 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: December 2nd, 2006, 9:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 29th, 2004, 1:28 pm
Posts: 2537
majkinetor wrote:
Tell that to the n00b that will probably walkaround this place, once in the lifetime, looking at plain URL having to horizontaly scroll suspicious links provided by one of the forum users witch names itself "corrupt" :D
There was no horizontal scrolling involved(unless you're running in 640x480 maybe...). What do you think of the suggestion? I would be more than willing to contribute to the creation/maintenance of a "Standard Library" but the format/implementation still seems to be undecided (unless I've missed a post somewhere - quite possible as I haven't been around much in the last couple months).


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: December 2nd, 2006, 11:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: March 2nd, 2004, 3:36 pm
Posts: 10720
It's a good suggestion. However, AutoHotkey's current design isn't well-suited for it because included files are all loaded before each function call is paired with its function. This would have to be changed to load a new file whenever a function isn't found among all the explicitly included files; but that would require careful study of the repercussions, and could require some redesigning.

Another issue is accidental matching of functions in the standard library. As more functions are added, the chance that a misspelled or omitted function will accidentally match a name in the library grows.

Even so, I like the fact that it avoids having to add #include lines. It wold make scripting easier, which is always a good thing.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: December 3rd, 2006, 1:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 29th, 2004, 1:28 pm
Posts: 2537
Chris wrote:
It's a good suggestion. However, AutoHotkey's current design isn't well-suited for it because included files are all loaded before each function call is paired with its function. This would have to be changed to load a new file whenever a function isn't found among all the explicitly included files; but that would require careful study of the repercussions, and could require some redesigning.
Thanks for the info :) . Does searching for missing pairs before loading includes sound like it might be doable without major structural changes? I haven't had a look at how pairs are determined yet... The more I think about it though, what I suggested sounds possible without having to make any changes to the Autohotkey .exe file (although I'm guessing that it would likely be more efficient to have Autohotkey do the parsing). I'll try and put together a working example for fun :) .


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: December 3rd, 2006, 1:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 29th, 2004, 1:28 pm
Posts: 2537
Chris wrote:
Another issue is accidental matching of functions in the standard library. As more functions are added, the chance that a misspelled or omitted function will accidentally match a name in the library grows.
I Agree, but I think that this will become a potential issue regardless of the method used. Names for functions that get included in a Standard Library should be carefully considered and a format for included functions should be determined to minimize confusion and compatibility issues.

That being said though, in the end it is up to the person writing the script to make sure that syntax errors are not present that may cause a different function to get called accidentally. A directive to make the use of a "Standard Library" optional may also help reduce this. This way users know the risks once they have added the functionality to their script(s).


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: December 4th, 2006, 5:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: May 24th, 2006, 2:49 pm
Posts: 4511
Location: Belgrade
2 corrupt
The effect of this solution is basicly the same as what I proposed, so I think it is good idea too.

About names, stdlib should definitely start with unique prefix like std_. This can latter be fixed by adding #define directive as proposed already witch seems to me even more imporant now, considering all the things I said here

_________________
Image


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AutoHotkey Needs You
PostPosted: January 20th, 2007, 7:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: December 4th, 2006, 10:35 am
Posts: 561
Location: Galil, Israel
Quote:
Script Reviewer: Categorize and/or score the scripts and functions posted in the forum. Publish and maintain the results in the wiki or in some other site. If you're not comfortable scoring the quality/usefulness of each script, just the categorization alone would be a big help. Jon's Catalogue of All Scripts is a great starting point. As Ace_NoOne said, While searching the forums, I often stumble across many highly useful scripts and functions... However, these resources are often hard to find...



humble suggestion to use structure and technology in place of hard work ?


For example, have a pulldown menu as part of the post html with catagorized list of script types. Include "I don't know", or "Needs other" option. Then... provide a forum view that simply (searches &) filters for the script type or subtype.


somehow could then volunteer to deal with the 'i don't know' responses and add to the pulldown if really 'needs other'.


just for example...



Allowing everyone to SELF-CATAGORIZE seems million times for efficient than trying to hire someone to do it.

as AHK grows, there might be... tens.. hundreds... thousands of script submissions per day... [why not ?]


then...

also... perhaps..


allowing others to RATE the scripts & provide a filter/search based also on script rating...



Quote:
[*]Standard Library: Collect scripts and functions for the "standard library", which is planned to be distributed with the program for use with #Include. Work with the original author (if possible) to test and document each function.




humble suggestion 2:



Maybe this, or part of this, can be something like a LANGUAGE EXTENSION LIBRARY.


which, if this is not too much work... probably would benifit greatly from a unified vision in naming (ie. Chris), the functions, which would be... as if... actually part of the AHK language.



each function can have it's own ahk file,

GROUP_NAME+FUNCTIONNAME.ahk

and each 'group' will have a ahk file with #INCLUDEs for each function in that group...

so...

innocent user an include one function... or the whole group.. as they desire.



biggest part may be adding the documentation for each function, which to my mind, is part of what really gives AHK it's power. having functions, and being able to find them...



and as this would be... in a large way helping to devlop (in its own way) the actual AHK language itself... seems like the line of volunteers to help with this would be long....with genius and qualified hands to help shape... (if not, and there is simply no one else, will even volunteer myself, subject to not having to take an IQ test to qualify).

_________________
Joyce Jamce


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: January 20th, 2007, 11:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: November 13th, 2004, 4:08 am
Posts: 2951
Location: Minnesota
Quote:
Allowing everyone to SELF-CATAGORIZE seems million times for efficient than trying to hire someone to do it.


Agreed. So post a link to your script on the wiki. It's much better suited to this purpose than a search integration, since it's browsable, and it's already in place. What you're asking would require a good deal of work on the part of Chris or whoever codes it, assuming phpbb even allows for it.

Quote:
allowing others to RATE the scripts & provide a filter/search based also on script rating...


This is a bad idea. Scripts that are higher rated might get more visibility, while others that are also useful might be overlooked based solely on someone's (possibly flawed) subjective opinion. Also, ratings would probably tend to favor "neat" scripts while ignoring ones that demonstrate a useful workaround or technique.
Furthermore, most problems require a very specific solution. Any script that covers that solution will suffice, ratings aren't necessary; in fact, since they would be sorted in order of popularity, the case-specific ones that most people wouldn't care about would be harder to find.

Quote:
Maybe this, or part of this, can be something like a LANGUAGE EXTENSION LIBRARY.


I'm not sure how this would differ from a standard library... if such a library were made, it would already be distributed with AHK, what further integration is needed?
As for adding them to the documentation, I don't think that's necessary at all. It would add unnecessary clutter in the same way that integrating them with AutoHotkey would.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: January 21st, 2007, 4:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: March 2nd, 2004, 3:36 pm
Posts: 10720
The ideas are good, but they're mostly beyond my knowledge and motivation to implement. The maintenance of the site and the answering of e-mails have become a large drain on my time -- so the project really needs volunteers who are willing to go the extra mile.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: January 28th, 2007, 11:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: December 4th, 2006, 10:35 am
Posts: 561
Location: Galil, Israel
to implement instant 'do-it-yourself' script categorization,


Need only to add two pull down menus to the forum HTML.


1) when posting a message/reply containing code.

2) in the search html.


the menu would be a list-index of what the script is...


to be effective, IMHO, need to carefully structure the categories, etc. so that when SEARCHING for a script, the distinctions are clear and meaningful... ie... actually help me quickly find the script /function i'm looking for.



effort for poster... simply finding the category in a pulldown list.

much much much less than having to copy link, goto wiki .. find place... add post.. paste link....


also... alows much easier change/update of location, etc... if original poster realizes categorization maybe not right, etc...

also allows repliers to add/suggest alternative category for script...


anyhow...

_________________
Joyce Jamce


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: #include - please!
PostPosted: August 15th, 2007, 8:24 pm 
Please count my vote towards usage of #includes.


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 17th, 2008, 6:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: October 27th, 2006, 10:12 am
Posts: 649
PhiLho wrote:
I agree, the Wiki is under used ...
Now we can ask ourselves:
? Why is the wiki under used
? Is there any need for sharing ahk-solutions in a wiki
It seems, the AutoHotkey forum has so great potential, people don't see any need for a wiki for direct solution sharing and communicating.

Wiki would be useful to create all kind of cross-linking, further organization, tagging, categorization... here too less effort was made, probably because of lack of free time or interest. AHK Experts don't have a need for that anyway, and no noob ahk-user wants to spend time there. (e.g. They just want their poker game solution.)


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: July 11th, 2008, 7:19 pm 
Instead of sophisticated and neat, how about something simple and necessary.

Add A_MyDocuments as a valid variable in the #Include directive. With this, one can place his include folder next to his lib folder and reference it with the same code on different machines, and simply use template.ahk to maintain a consistent list of common include files (which you can remove from or add to each script as needed). For example:
- Home: D:\AutoHotkey\include
- Work: C:\Documents and Settings\User.Name\MyPersonalFolder\AutoHotkey\include
Code:
#Include %A_MyDocuments%\AutoHotkey\include
#Include IncludeFile1.ahk
#Include IncludeFile2.ahk
#Include IncludeFile3.ahk

This could help some people, including me, to sync their scripts on multiple machines. Here is my code if it helps you add this to the next version:

The following instructions are in the format:
[STEP 1 - Upgrade AutoHotkey]
Find code
Insert code
[STEP 2 - Upgrade AHK2EXE]
Find code
Insert code
[STEP 3 - Upgrade AHK2EXE]
Find code
Insert code

[STEP 1 - Add A_MyDocuments to the #Include directive in AutoHotkey]

In Script.cpp of AutoHotkey, find the following code (should be line 2576):
Code:
      if (strcasestr(parameter, "%A_AppDataCommon%")) // v1.0.45.04.
      {
         BIV_AppData(buf, "A_AppDataCommon");
         StrReplace(parameter, "%A_AppDataCommon%", buf, SCS_INSENSITIVE, 1, space_remaining);
      }


Paste this code immediately after it (should be line 2581):
Code:
      if (strcasestr(parameter, "%A_MyDocuments%"))
      {
         BIV_MyDocuments(buf, "A_MyDocuments");
         StrReplace(parameter, "%A_MyDocuments%", buf, SCS_INSENSITIVE, 1, space_remaining);
      }


[STEP 2 - Add A_MyDocuments to the #Include directive in AHK2EXE]
NOTE: All changes after this point are for AHK2EXE only

In Application.cpp find the following code (should be line 1499):
Code:
      if (strcasestr(filename, "%A_AppDataCommon%")) // v1.0.45.04.
      {
         GetAppData(true, buf);
         StrReplace(filename, "%A_AppDataCommon%", buf, false); // Overflow is too unlikely, so it isn't checked.
      }


Paste this immediately after it (should be line 1504):
Code:
      if (strcasestr(filename, "%A_MyDocuments%"))
      {
         GetMyDocuments(buf);
         StrReplace(filename, "%A_MyDocuments%", buf, false); // Overflow is too unlikely, so it isn't checked.
      }


[STEP 3 - Teach AHK2EXE how to find the "My Documents" folder]

In the same source file (Application.cpp), find the following code (should be line 1091):
Code:
void GetAppData(bool aGetCommon, char *aBuf)
// Caller must ensure that buf is at least MAX_PATH in size.
{
   *aBuf = '\0'; // Set default.
   if (aGetCommon)
      RegReadString(HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE, "SOFTWARE\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Explorer\\Shell Folders"
         , "Common AppData", aBuf, MAX_PATH);
   if (!*aBuf) // Either the above failed or we were told to get the user/private dir instead.
      RegReadString(HKEY_CURRENT_USER, "SOFTWARE\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Explorer\\Shell Folders"
         , "AppData", aBuf, MAX_PATH);
}


Insert this function after it (should be line 1105):
Code:
void GetMyDocuments(char *aBuf)
// Caller must ensure that buf is at least MAX_PATH in size.
{
   *aBuf = '\0'; // Set default.
   RegReadString(HKEY_CURRENT_USER, "SOFTWARE\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Explorer\\Shell Folders"
         , "Personal", aBuf, MAX_PATH);
}


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: November 30th, 2008, 2:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: November 30th, 2008, 1:51 pm
Posts: 73
I'd like to make AutoHotkey to support Unicode (because I wait for a long time), should I work on the codes which can be grabbed on the official site, or join the dev team to access the latest code base? Hope I can get response soon...


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: No Replacement Icon Yet
PostPosted: April 16th, 2009, 10:39 am 
Offline

Joined: December 14th, 2005, 3:08 pm
Posts: 219
I see V1.0.48.01 has been released. But still no sign of one of the most requested features - user selectable icon.

I'd like to be able to design or choose my own icon that AHK uses in the system tray. This feature has been requested a lot and yet still no implementation?

I hear that in the forum some one has wrote a hack script but this is hardly professional and not I'm sure approved off by the AHK Author.

So when can we expect to see this needed feature added to AHK?

An estimate time scale would be nice? It's been a couple of years already...
:cry:

_________________
Stuart Halliday


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: April 16th, 2009, 12:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: March 2nd, 2004, 3:36 pm
Posts: 10720
Architect wrote:
Add A_MyDocuments as a valid variable in the #Include directive.
I've added it to the to-do list for consideration. Thanks for the idea and the code.

jackieku wrote:
I'd like to make AutoHotkey to support Unicode (because I wait for a long time), should I work on the codes which can be grabbed on the official site, or join the dev team to access the latest code base? Hope I can get response soon...
Sorry for the late reply. I'm still interested in a Unicode version. If anyone would like to work on it, I'd welcome it.

quatermass wrote:
I see V1.0.48.01 has been released. But still no sign of one of the most requested features - user selectable icon.
You can already select a custom icon with the existing features. If you mean changing the default icon in AutoHotkey.exe, that seems like it would be rarely used; so it probably won't become a feature anytime soon.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot], nimda, Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group