Yes, it is that much worse. It's not impossibly difficult, as a Linux user I've got used to editing system files from time to time, but it's still a considerably more involved procedure. As opposed to just copying and pasting the URL into a box and saving, I have to find the bit of the script that needs to be edited, not a trivial procedure, and then make sure I've got exactly the syntax that it expects. Yes, I can learn to do it, but it still seems to me to be a retrograde step to make the extension more difficult to use, rather than easier.
I don't want to sound ungrateful, Greasemonkey has made my life easier for the last several years, and I do appreciate the hard work that goes into it, I was just hoping that somebody might have had the same problem, and known enough to be able to do something about it. If it's at all helpful for me to bring this up somewhere else, I'd be very happy to do so, but I didn't want to make too much of a nuisance of myself. Sally On Apr 10, 9:03 pm, Anthony Lieuallen <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2011-04-09 10:21 AM, Sally Kennett wrote: > > > being able to specify exactly where some scripts work is a very > > important part of the way I use the add-on, something I've been used > > to doing for several years. I understand that it's possible to edit > > the metadata of the script in some way > > Indeed. Just edit the file and specify @include and/or @exclude rules. > Is this really so much worse/more difficult? -- 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.
