AutoHotkey Community

It would be better if files regarding in #Include will have their own special extension (e.g. ".ahi") and a respective icon.
Then including files will not mix with main script files in the same directory.

This has been suggested before but adding a new extension has a lot of drawbacks that seem to outweigh the benefits:

1) Another icon and filetype must be registered when the program is installed. This adds complexity and size to the installer.

2) Since the number of three-letter extensions is limited, a program that uses more than one without good reason is probably frowned upon.

3) Editor add-ons would all have to be changed to recognize both .ahk and .ahi as script files subject to syntax highlighting. Similarly, scripts such as Intellisense would have to be changed to recognize both extensions.

Although I'm opposed to the idea, I've added a poll to this topic to gauge interest.

If anyone knows other costs or benefits, please post them.

I said no preference for my point of view, but it's allways the same, if there is a high cost in terms of efforts for a little benefit, it is probably better to give the high priority to other things...

The ultimate goal is not to enlarge the number of extensions and icons, but to separate executable scripts from library sources. Another way might be to provide

directive allowing to store all library .ahk-files in separate DirName directory.

This capability has been added in today's update. If it gives you any problems, please let me know.

Thanks for all your suggestions.

Why not just name them with a different extension on your PC? Files to be included don't currently have to end in .ahk

As these included files wouldn't typically need to be associated with a particular application it seems unnecessary IMO to associate a specific extension with them that might conflict with another application on someone's PC.

I use the construction: "inc_<name>.ahk" which marks the files as includeble and gives me the option to search in all *.AHK for some text.

Having the option for a special INC-directory is great.

*************************

AND let me suggest parameters for the include (as we just talk about changes):

which could replace my current construction and the knowledge of the name used in the include file:

I can see how this might be useful so I'll keep it in mind for a future version. Thanks.