 |
AutoHotkey Community
Let's help each other out
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
corrupt
Joined: 29 Dec 2004
Posts: 2328
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 9:36 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| 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"  |
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). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Chris
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 10450
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
corrupt
Joined: 29 Dec 2004
Posts: 2328
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
corrupt
Joined: 29 Dec 2004
Posts: 2328
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
majkinetor
Joined: 24 May 2006
Posts: 3544
Location: Belgrade
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joy2DWorld
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Posts: 386
Location: Galil, Israel
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:35 pm Post subject: Re: AutoHotkey Needs You |
|
|
| 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jonny
Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 3005
Location: Minnesota
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 10450
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joy2DWorld
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Posts: 386
Location: Galil, Israel
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:19 pm Post subject: Tiny Effort, Huge result... |
|
|
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BengalTigger
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:24 pm Post subject: #include - please! |
|
|
Please count my vote towards usage of #includes.
I cannot find a way to maintain AHK functions as separate entities while combining them into an overall application. (for example a writerhelp.ahk might have includes for spellcheck.ahk, textexpand.ahk, and mysignature.ahk). Instead, it seems I have to either choose to either start all of those separately, or I can choose to combine them all into a single file which unfortunately eliminates selfcontainment of the individual functions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BengalTigger
Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:31 pm Post subject: oops |
|
|
 I found how to do this in the help. (I had misspelled it when searching). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
automaticman
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
