Suggested feature: Let the user edit an existing bookmark to create a new one

[Raindrops]

I imported the 1.5 Edition of bookmarks.

The next logical step was to further adapt them for my own workflow.
At this stage, I noticed a problem:

The Bookmarks GUI allows us to edit a bookmark, but there is no provision to create a variation of an existing bookmark, by-
1. Copy a bookmark and open in edit window (to be saved as a bookmark with a new name).

Bookmark window-1.png (33.34 KiB) Viewed 2340 times

2. In the editing window, save as a new bookmark.

Bookmark window-2.png (39.18 KiB) Viewed 2340 times

It would be great to have these features!

[void]

Please try copy-pasting the bookmark in the Organize Bookmark Dialog.

Right click to Copy/Paste. (Ctrl + C and Ctrl + V)

I will consider a Copy / Save as button.
Thank you for the suggestions.

P.S. the screenshots look great!

[Raindrops]

The CTRL+C and CTRL+V worked great!

Only thing, the Bookmark window makes the copy with the same name.
I expected Everything to add a suffix so that all bookmarks have unique names
(much like how the file system avoids name conflict).

P.S. the screenshots look great!

Thanks!
I wanted to reduce their size, though. Is there a trick for that?

[void]

To adjust the size you'll need the image URL and the imgh, imgw or imgwh bbcode.



320 pixels wide:

Code: Select all

[imgw=320]https://www.voidtools.com/forum/download/file.php?mode=view&id=2606[/imgw]

where 320 is the desired width in pixels.
The image is scaled with the correct aspect ratio.





320 pixels high:

Code: Select all

[imgh=320]https://www.voidtools.com/forum/download/file.php?mode=view&id=2606[/imgw]

where 320 is the desired height in pixels.
The image is scaled with the correct aspect ratio.





320 x 320 pixels:

Code: Select all

[imgwh=320,320]https://www.voidtools.com/forum/download/file.php?mode=view&id=2606[/imgwh]

where 320 is the desired width and height in pixels.
The image aspect ratio can be customized.





The image URL is shown under the Attachment tab on the left.

imgw
imgh
imgwh

[Raindrops]

Something occurred to me: When we copy-paste a bookmark, it copies the hotkey also.
That means the same hotkey is now associated with two different bookmarks.
That should not be allowed.

(This is apart from preventing duplicate bookmark names.)

[Raindrops]

Instead of using the URL-based formula, is it possible to tweak its own native code to resize it?

For example, my first image is pasted with the following code:

Code: Select all

[attachment=0]Bookmark window-1.png[/attachment]

Can I insert an HTML tag in this code to resize it?

[void]

Duplicated bookmarks are allowed.

Everything will not be strict here.

The first matching name or key is used.

about:keys

Can I insert an HTML tag in this code to resize it?

No.
You'll need to use bbcodes.

[ChrisGreaves]

Duplicated bookmarks are allowed.

Why?

Bookmarks_02.png (10.71 KiB) Viewed 2055 times

I would argue against allowing duplicate bookmarks.
[selfish]The beginner has enough to master without wondering which of his/her two (or twelve!) bookmarks is the bookmark he/she wants.[/selfish]

I found it confusing enough in the 55 minutes between morning tea and lunch. How much worse it will be between the equinox and the solstice!

What makes duplicates even worse IMHO is that in the list of bookmarks (certainly at this beginner's stage) there is no data to qualify the entries, such as a date/time stamp.

I am serious about allowing one identifier to map to two different entities. In computing in general this is a taboo.
Just as bad in families with two sons named "fred", let alone taxonomy of flowering plants (grin!)

Please: What value does Everything gain by allowing duplicates of bookmarks?
Indeed of anything?

When I export my bookmarks to a CSV I see 25 columns of data. Might column "Z" hold a date/time modified then that column of data could be added to the Show bookmarks panel?
Thanks, Chris

[void]

Duplicated bookmarks are allowed.

Why?

It gets complicated when importing/pasting bookmarks.
I would have to rename bookmarks, eg: Tutorial (2)

Please: What value does Everything gain by allowing duplicates of bookmarks?
Indeed of anything?

Simplicity.

I will consider limiting bookmarks to a unique name in a future release.

[ChrisGreaves]

I will consider limiting bookmarks to a unique name in a future release.

Thank you Void
Excellent. I am now making space on my SSD for Everything 1.6

I think that a crude loop-through-table and a simple error message to the user would be much better than the user discovering six months later that they have two different bookmarks with the same name, long after those bookmarks were prepared
With honest respect, are we not talking about a simple "For lng = 1 to Table.Rows.Count" sort of loop here?

Would you like me to remind you, when you start coding 1.6, to add a "comments" field to bring the number of columns to 26?
Just askin'
Cheers, Chris

[meteorquake]

There is another way to copy entries (generally), and that is Ctrl-Drag (then at the right spot release the drag before releasing the ctrl). I usually use that because it's easier, you can control its destination in an ordered list, and doesn't affect the clipboard.

I can understand why duplicate names are allowed - the user is always going to need to rename them anyway and should quickly realise. But no harm in adding a number. There may be an advantage in suffixing with the date yyyy-mm-dd rather than a number and only then add a number if needed.

d

[ChrisGreaves]

I can understand why duplicate names are allowed - ...

Hi Meteorquake.
Until this week I had never heard an advocate for one name mapping to two entities in all my time with computers.
In classes in abstract mathematics, yes, but in real life, no.
That is why I was brought to a surprised halt in Everything when I realized that one Bookmark name visually (in the dialogue box) applied to two bookmark (strings) created at separate times.
Cheers, Chris

[meteorquake]

I've actually programmed the same thing just the other day for something. Items get given a new underlying ID but their title isn't altered by a suffix because at the time they're identical and the person making the copy is going to edit one of them to make it different and in so doing give it a new name. But they might decide in editing to keep its name and after alter the name of the unedited one, or drag one of them somewhere else into a different category. Rather than second-guess the user action that's about to happen, it's easier to let them do it. If somehow they forget in the process of doing it to resolve the sameness by category, title or deletion, then they just have to have a look and change one of them when they do notice. Not having a uniqueness constraint on the titles has the further advantage that you don't get needless aborts occurring (which void referred to importing which would be a common scenario, synchronisation is another if two different items get changed to the same name at different ends) - this silent allowance of duplicates is only an issue on large lists or where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing but on small lists where the user knows the the full picture it's not a problem. It also makes switching two names easier since you don't have to name one out first.
d