XYplorer Beta Club

Talking about UDC "Go To" and scripting "goto". I'd say when you want to go somewhere using these commands, you either want go to the unfiltered location or set a new filter. You hardly want to keep any current filter (which is unknown to you in the moment you write the command).

So, I suggest if the location is stated without any filter then any current filters should be removed (as if it would be "location|").

Okay?

Hmm.. if you go that way can I suggest a change to the Filter command to allow turning the filter on without changing it.

Perhaps change Filter [Pattern] to Filter [-|+||Pattern]

So we could do:
Filter -
or
Filter
To turn off the current filter.

Filter +
To turn on the current filter.

Filter |*.jpg
To activate a new filter of "*.jpg"

It's a little confusing writing the documentation but using a | to start a pattern keeps with the quick filters format, and still allows us to use - or + as the pattern.

TheQwerty wrote:Hmm.. if you go that way can I suggest a change to the Filter command to allow turning the filter on without changing it.

::#355 = View / Current Tab / Toggle No/Last Visual Filter

Fine can we have a new command?
::FilterToggle = ::#355

TheQwerty wrote:Fine can we have a new command?
::FilterToggle = ::#355

Maybe we can solve it with a parameter? E.g. ::Filter \ or ::Filter / ...

For what do you need it? I find toggles unpractical for scripting.

admin wrote:

TheQwerty wrote:Fine can we have a new command?
::FilterToggle = ::#355

Maybe we can solve it with a parameter? E.g. ::Filter \ or ::Filter / ...

For what do you need it? I find toggles unpractical for scripting.

Actually forget everything I've said in this thread.

I do oppose to this idea.

As it stands I can easily remove the filter from the UDC or goto command myself, but there is no good way for me to re-apply the filter that's in use if you automatically remove it.

admin wrote:Okay?

hum, no.

I don't think I like this idea. Because sometimes I do browse around and I have a VF set and I expect it to stay on, very useful for quick "manual search job". Besides, how would one get to disable any VF then ?

Now reading your first post again I need to ask : you really mean only UDC and script, not any other way to call the goto feature ?
- If you mean all calls to go to, then I'm definitely against it.
- If you do mean only UDC/Scripting, then I find it quite odd, as it's inconsistency and a source for confusion : goto works one way, except for UDC/Scripting ?
Despite that, I guess most the times when I browse around with a VF on, I use Tree, Favorites or Catalog, so I guess I would be fine. Im not sure how others would feel, when they have other way to work...

But if you are to do it, I would think that :

- command filter should allow to turn it on/off, like toggle only we "decide" the state. Eg: "::filter 0" would turn it off (to filter items with a zero, we can just quote: ::filter "0")

- there should be a way, extra param?, to do a goto and ask to let VF unchnaged. Because today we can do a goto and decide : no change, turn it off, set specified VF.

TheQwerty wrote:

admin wrote:

TheQwerty wrote:Fine can we have a new command?
::FilterToggle = ::#355

Maybe we can solve it with a parameter? E.g. ::Filter \ or ::Filter / ...

For what do you need it? I find toggles unpractical for scripting.

Actually forget everything I've said in this thread.

I do oppose to this idea.

As it stands I can easily remove the filter from the UDC or goto command myself, but there is no good way for me to re-apply the filter that's in use if you automatically remove it.

My reason to suggest a change is: I see myself suffixing locations with "|" only to turn off any filter (or start every script with "filter;") . Not good. I believe the standard desire is "filter off" when you go to a new place. Whereas "keep filter" is rather an exceptional thing in the context of scripting. The exceptional things should always be harder to get. That's a universal law of work economy. So I'll look for a way to say "Goto X and keep any VF".

jacky wrote:...No!...

Yes, I see the inconsistency. You are right, it would be confusing. I think about it. There are many options. E.g. a new command ("go"?) to browse a location unfiltered. Or add a parameter to goto to optionally open the location in a new tab (which is always unfiltered).