Extended Message Box - Proposed changes

[mLipok]

Please consider using this modified files ExtMsgBox.zip

There are moved examples to subfolder, and examples are compilant with Au3Check.

Edited May 8, 2021 by Melba23
Split from main ExtMsgBox thread

[Melba23]

mLipok,

Why should I consider these files? What are the differences when compared to the originals? 

M23

[TheDcoder]

@Melba23 I think mLipok says he moved the examples scripts into a separate folder and checked the code with Au3Check... so it sounds like a purely cosmetic change.

[Melba23]

TheDcoder,

How about we let mLipok answer for himself?

M23

[mLipok]

Exactly, only changes for Au3Check compliance and moving the examples to a subdirectory, because it then makes managing UDF files much easier.

What I mean by this is taking into account the broader perspective and multi-project management, .. .IMHO it is kind of "Good Coding Practices" to Move examples to SubDirectory.
For example I have one directory for UDF which comes form FORUM members, and one which I manage and release on the forum, and one for my private UDF.
In each of this folder I have about 20 different UDF, and if I also had to have all examples in the same directories, then it would have totally mess with too many UDF mixed with examples at one directory.
So I thought that I try to separate UDF main files from Examples and from my testing script.
This is entire the back stage story related to moving examples file to subfolder.

As to Au3Check compliance.
I know that not everyone likes it because it would require rewriting a significant part of their existing scripts.

In general, the proposed changes do not affect the correctness of AutoIt's execution of these scripts, but again in a broader perspective, they show users a number of good practices that are followed / required / enforced by the already mentioned Au3Check.

As I am in order to develop good habits, in the SciTE4Au3 environment I turned on the compliance requirement for each script I run.

This allows me to explore the analyzed code more thoroughly (because I have to refactor it), learn a lot. The amount of my extra work is sometimes small, sometimes large, but I always try to share it with the community.

I know not everyone will support my approach, that's why I kindly ask about taking the change consideration into yours UDF.

[mLipok]

4 minutes ago, mLipok said:

I know that not everyone likes it because it would require rewriting a significant part of their existing scripts.

I hope that over time this argument will cease to be significant for many, if only because of the changes that I am proposing successively, because, as you know, this is not the first UDF to which I contribute, in the same way as in this case.

[Melba23]

mLipok,

My UDFs already use Au3Check with the following parameters:

#AutoIt3Wrapper_au3check_parameters=-d -w 1 -w 2 -w 3 -w 4 -w 5 -w 6 -w- 7

Are you saying that they are non-compliant?

As to your suggestion of moving examples to a subfolder - that is an entirely personal request for your convenience. Personally I have a separate folder for each UDF I download from other forum users so there is no conflict between them - and then if I use the UDF on regular basis I transfer the "action" files to my additional "Include" folder. Every user is at liberty to do as they please with their own system - and we differ in how to manage downloaded UDFs.

So I see no absolutely no requirement for UDF authors to cater to your particular wishes. You arrange the files as you wish and let others do it their way.

M23

[mLipok]

59 minutes ago, Melba23 said:

My UDFs already use Au3Check with the following parameters:

#AutoIt3Wrapper_au3check_parameters=-d -w 1 -w 2 -w 3 -w 4 -w 5 -w 6 -w- 7

Are you saying that they are non-compliant?

I was talking about any script, also examples not only UDF. For this reason I refactor them (examples) to have them also Au3Check compliant, then I share them here, as a proposals, which can or not be taken into consideration. 

1 hour ago, Melba23 said:

As to your suggestion of moving examples to a subfolder - that is an entirely personal request for your convenience. Personally I have a separate folder for each UDF I download from other forum users so there is no conflict between them - and then if I use the UDF on regular basis I transfer the "action" files to my additional "Include" folder. Every user is at liberty to do as they please with their own system - and we differ in how to manage downloaded UDFs.

So I see no absolutely no requirement for UDF authors to cater to your particular wishes. You arrange the files as you wish and let others do it their way.

As to your decision and statement I respect what you said,