XYplorer Beta Club

As it stands right now, if you do a RegEx Rename, the preview window that comes up is small and not resizeable. So, working with longer filenames means that you always have to scroll to see the entire proposed new filename every time.

I would submit the suggestion that this be made into a resizeable window, and that XY remembers the last size (and perhaps position) used.

yep, I've noticed that too a few times, though this has nothing to do with RegExp of course, it's true for any rename preview...

jacky wrote:
yep, I've noticed that too a few times, though this has nothing to do with RegExp of course, it's true for any rename preview...

Ah, well I pretty much exclusively use RegEx Rename when I need to rename files, so I never noticed it on the other variations.

Yep, did something about it.

admin wrote:
Yep, did something about it.

Thanks, Don!

But I tested it out and while the new changes are an improvement, it doesn't do the trick for me. I'm still hitting the limits most of the time and need to scroll - both horizontally, as well as vertically (the list only shows 16 items).

If I could resize the window and have XY remember it, that would do the trick - but the current implementation only helps if I'm working with a short list of files with short-medium length filenames.

Mesh wrote:

admin wrote:
Yep, did something about it.

Thanks, Don!

But I tested it out and while the new changes are an improvement, it doesn't do the trick for me. I'm still hitting the limits most of the time and need to scroll - both horizontally, as well as vertically (the list only shows 16 items).

If I could resize the window and have XY remember it, that would do the trick - but the current implementation only helps if I'm working with a short list of files with short-medium length filenames.

Really? I thought I made it to use the whole available screen width. Or are your new names much larger than your old names? I could optimize the algo then...

About the height. Yep, I could also optimize that.

I want to avoid live-sizing because it's more troublesome to program plus adds another INI value.

admin wrote:I want to avoid live-sizing because it's more troublesome to program plus adds another INI value.

True, but one advantage of that would be users could then define a "standard" size that fits their needs, and know that it would be same size each time it's invoked, if I understand it correctly...just a thought.

j_c_hallgren wrote:

admin wrote:I want to avoid live-sizing because it's more troublesome to program plus adds another INI value.

True, but one advantage of that would be users could then define a "standard" size that fits their needs, and know that it would be same size each time it's invoked, if I understand it correctly...just a thought.

Yes, but if your filenames are short you would not like 2 lists each 800 pixels wide -- hard to compare anything then...

admin wrote:

j_c_hallgren wrote:
True, but one advantage of that would be users could then define a "standard" size that fits their needs, and know that it would be same size each time it's invoked, if I understand it correctly...just a thought.

Yes, but if your filenames are short you would not like 2 lists each 800 pixels wide -- hard to compare anything then...

Honestly, I'd prefer that for the flexibility it gives. Personally, I like a little padding - it irks me when text runs right up against the edge of a panel. I'd rather have the ability to size it so that it looks comfortable for me.

If you think about it, it's not really any different than people who would use XY in non-maximized mode. Depending on the size of the directories and files, they'd need to resize XY's main window to suit them - but I haven't heard anyone complain about that. This would work similarly.

admin wrote:
Really? I thought I made it to use the whole available screen width. Or are your new names much larger than your old names? I could optimize the algo then...

It's not the difference between the two - the window seems to not want to expand beyond 43 characters for each pane.

Mesh wrote:

admin wrote:
Really? I thought I made it to use the whole available screen width. Or are your new names much larger than your old names? I could optimize the algo then...

It's not the difference between the two - the window seems to not want to expand beyond 43 characters for each pane.

Then it's a bug. Can you send a screenshot, please (per email).

Hold it, not necessary -- it's a bug!

I just tried out 7.40.0006, and it still doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

The height of the window is still limited to 16 items, and the width of each pane is limited to filenames of 64 characters.


I apologize for saying this again, but I still believe that making the window resizeable (with XY remembering the size) is the best option.


Perhaps an INI compromise is the best solution? Have the line in there to hold the size (if not the position) of the window - but if the value is set to "-1" (for example), then the window autosizes as it does now. Then make that the default for XY. That way, power users who want this can go into the INI file and delete the "-1" value, which would cause XY to allow and remember the manual modification.

Is that something that's workable?

Mesh wrote:I just tried out 7.40.0006, and it still doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

The height of the window is still limited to 16 items, and the width of each pane is limited to filenames of 64 characters.

Let me first try to understand - maybe there is still a bug.

I did not work on the height. But the width of the preview window should be almost screen width -- is that right?? And if that's so, how could/would you manually resize it to larger than screen width -- you cannot see beyond your monitor...

admin wrote:
Let me first try to understand - maybe there is still a bug.

I did not work on the height. But the width of the preview window should be almost screen width -- is that right?? And if that's so, how could/would you manually resize it to larger than screen width -- you cannot see beyond your monitor...

The width of the total window is less than half of my screen width. So there's plenty of room for me to resize it at the moment.

Mesh wrote:

admin wrote:
Let me first try to understand - maybe there is still a bug.

I did not work on the height. But the width of the preview window should be almost screen width -- is that right?? And if that's so, how could/would you manually resize it to larger than screen width -- you cannot see beyond your monitor...

The width of the total window is less than half of my screen width. So there's plenty of room for me to resize it at the moment.

Can anybody confirm this? Are you sure you are using the latest beta??