sizzlemctwizzle escribió:
On Feb 10, 4:28 pm, Mr Warper <[email protected]> wrote:
make it so that the includes/excludes it reports are read from the scripts,
and so that any new rules are incorporated to the scripts headers instead
to an XML database.
The only problem with this is that editing a script via automated
means can get tricky. There isn't a guarantee that an installed script
Of course.
even has a metadata block, since installing a script without one isn't
forbidden. We could probably find work-arounds for most cases. So far
Yes, that's why I proposed it :)
I'm +1 on this change because it bridges the gap between experienced
users who can edit the script and average users who just need
something quick and simple, but I would still like to hear more
opinions on the matter.
Well, this is probably the last thing I'm saying about this, but anyway: as a
developer myself, I'm not afraid of pushing an 'edit' button and modify a script
if necessary. OTOH, 99% of the time I'd really prefer to push 'add URL', type in
the goddamn thing and be done with it w/o having to look up and down, missing a
closing quote before saving the script and realizing only because I start to get
weird errors, etc. So, keep the 'edit' button (and accompanying functionality :)
just in case but try to make things easier anyway. You can't succeed 100% of the
time, but 90% is still much better than 0.
Regards,
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"greasemonkey-users" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/greasemonkey-users?hl=en.
