Latest Beta

[GaryFrost]

@Garry: That's amazing big work!! Thanks. It's pitty that it's not backward compatible but in this case it make sense this is the best solution.

About HelpFile size: I noticed in all ListView helpfile examples is huge unneccessary/commented debug code in WM_NOTIFY.

This debug WM_NOTIFY code can be mentioned once in "GuiListView Management.htm" and not in all GUOListView functions.

In examples should be only code related to mentioned function.

In TreeView and others UDFs is it similar but code overhead is not so big as in ListView UDF.

Yes it's in the others also, ListView I believe has more to the events than most.

Some of the examples actually use the events while others don't. But I left them in so the users could see that other things can be done.

Worse case scenario would be to trim the examples that don't use the events. Don't think it will make the amount of disk space used that much different.

Almost all the examples have 2 or more Example functions, showing use with internal created control and with UDF created control.

The includes are a little heavier because the deprecated functions are at the end of the include, as I said they should still work but won't be documented anymore.

Gary

[Zedna]

The includes are a little heavier because the deprecated functions are at the end of the include, as I said they should still work but won't be documented anymore.

Gary

I didn't notice that depreceated functions are at the end of includes.

That's super backward compatible!

I would be happy also if depreceated functions will not be there.

In such case of BIG improving changes in UDF is not problem to rewrite several AutoIt scripts (which needs to be recompiled/changed) for new functions.

Idea: In next betas you can delete all commented code in UDF include files (there are commented old code in depreceated functions) and in HelpFile examples.

EDIT: if somebody needs old code then he can download old AutpIt ZIP file from AutoIt archive - so it needn't be in the current UDF as commented code

Edited September 30, 2007 by Zedna

[jvanegmond]

I did a proof of concept on the AutoIt WebUpdate. I made it to resemble Dev-C++'s WebUpdate.

Removed because because.

Edited September 25, 2008 by Manadar

[BrettF]

@Manadar: That's pretty cool It looks good.

[randallc]

Hi,

Fantastic effort, Gary, thanks!

I have manage dto delete a whole lot of redundant constants, insert a few deleted UDFs, and get "SearchMiner" working again!

The only one issue which I can't explain is that I have needed to use the old function for "_GUICtrlListViewGetTopIndex", but i can't post a bug report as I can't reproduce it in a small script.

If you are keen, please check the two versions sometime and see if you have an answer! [link in signature ;"I1" is to work with 3.2.8.1, 3.2.9.1, and "J1" to work with 3.2.9.2]

Best, randall

[GaryFrost]

Hi,

Fantastic effort, Gary, thanks!

I have manage dto delete a whole lot of redundant constants, insert a few deleted UDFs, and get "SearchMiner" working again!

The only one issue which I can't explain is that I have needed to use the old function for "_GUICtrlListViewGetTopIndex", but i can't post a bug report as I can't reproduce it in a small script.

If you are keen, please check the two versions sometime and see if you have an answer! [link in signature ;"I1" is to work with 3.2.8.1, 3.2.9.1, and "J1" to work with 3.2.9.2]

Best, randall

_GUICtrlListView_GetTopIndex should work, not much to it.

The deprecated function was missing the return.

Edited October 1, 2007 by GaryFrost

[Jon]

3.2.9.3 (5th October, 2007) (Beta)

- Fixed: $var = $var was not giving an error when $var didn't already exist.

- Fixed: Opt("WinTitleMatchMode", Default) fatal error. (Thanks pseakins)

- Fixed: 3.2.9.2 AutoIt error when launched under Windows 2000.

- Fixed: GUICtrlSetStyle() with $ES_READONLY bad $WS_TABSTOP. (Thanks Antiec, gafrost)

- Fixed: AutoIt Crash on exit if Win...() used with a Title being a COM object. (Thanks Volly)

And some UDF fixes I believe.

[therks]

No zip?

[GEOSoft]

No zip?

Looks that way and I notice there are two installers. Whats the difference?

If you just want the files, they can be extracted from the setup using 7zip.

Edited October 6, 2007 by GEOSoft

[randallc]

Hi,

If you run the 2nd, it just extracts the winRAR zipped files, no install, I think; "self-extracting WinrAR"

best, randall

[GEOSoft]

Hi,

If you run the 2nd, it just extracts the winRAR zipped files, no install, I think; "self-extracting WinrAR"

best, randall

Extracts then to where??? If it's putting them anywhere near my AutoIt folders then there's another good idea gone up in smoke. Anything that messes with my folder structure or hijacks file associations is not welcome on my system. I'll just extract the files from the regular installer version. That way they go where I want them to.

[Jon]

Extracts then to where??? If it's putting them anywhere near my AutoIt folders then there's another good idea gone up in smoke. Anything that messes with my folder structure or hijacks file associations is not welcome on my system. I'll just extract the files from the regular installer version. That way they go where I want them to.

Extracts it to where you tell it. It's just a self extracting archive, it's not an installation. I was going to leave it as a .rar file but no doubt people would have moaned.

(the .rar file is 4MB smaller than the .zip which is why I switched)

[GEOSoft]

Extracts it to where you tell it. It's just a self extracting archive, it's not an installation. I was going to leave it as a .rar file but no doubt people would have moaned.

(the .rar file is 4MB smaller than the .zip which is why I switched)

Thanks for that info Jon. Now I feel better. I'll download it and see if my old script still works against it but I think it should with a couple of simple changes.

[therks]

(the .rar file is 4MB smaller than the .zip which is why I switched)

Even as an exe? Nifty!

[Nahuel]

I posted a problem I had with the latest beta here and it was removed. I'd like to know why and where I should post that kind of things... Sorry for posting again, but I didn't know who to PM. Delete this message if you wish, but do tell me why my post was removed. Thanks.

[GEOSoft]

I posted a problem I had with the latest beta here and it was removed. I'd like to know why and where I should post that kind of things... Sorry for posting again, but I didn't know who to PM. Delete this message if you wish, but do tell me why my post was removed. Thanks.

Gary moved it to Bug Reports

See here

Edited October 8, 2007 by GaryFrost
Correct name spelling

[GaryFrost]

I posted a problem I had with the latest beta here and it was removed. I'd like to know why and where I should post that kind of things... Sorry for posting again, but I didn't know who to PM. Delete this message if you wish, but do tell me why my post was removed. Thanks.

You've been here long enough to know where to post a bug report

[Nahuel]

You've been here long enough to know where to post a bug report

I thought I wasn't allowed to post there. I got that message everytime I tried.

[Jos]

I thought I wasn't allowed to post there. I got that message everytime I tried.

Bug reports go in the "Bugs report" forum, questions go in the "Support forum"... always been like that.

[Nahuel]

Bug reports go in the "Bugs report" forum, questions go in the "Support forum"... always been like that.

Then what am I doing wrong?:

Board Message

Sorry, an error occurred. If you are unsure on how to use a feature, or don't know why you got this error message, try looking through the help files for more information.

The error returned was:Sorry, you do not have permission to start a topic in this forum