[Greasemonkey] Greasemonkey 0.6.6

[Henrik Nyh]

Aaron Boodman wrote:
> On 10/18/06, Johan Sundström <oyasumi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Another option that might work decently is to make scripts in the
>> monkey menu that have USC:s get sub menus of their commands. (Might
>> not rhyme well with having the menu item itself double as both
>> checkmark toggle and menu node/non-leaf at the same time, though?)
> 
> You're right that this would be tough to do with the checkmark
> behavior.  Let's try and figure it out some other way.

Wouldn't this be rather easily and tidily solved by:

Monkey >
	+ Script one
		+ Enabled
	    	--
		Some command
		Some other command
	  Script two
		  Enabled
	--
	New User Script
	Manage User Scripts...
	--
	+ Enabled

where the + signs represent checkmarks? So the checkmarks would still 
display, but there'd be a submenu for the "Enabled" option. This would 
also parallel the global enabled option at the bottom of the menu in a 
rather pleasing way.

>>> On a related note, subdividing the User Script Commands menu might be
>>> useful too - while I only have one script that makes use of it, I'd
>>> imagine it could get confusing if there were multiple entries from
>>> multiple scripts - could each script get a submenu for its commands, or
>>> maybe a banner name & divider between each scripts commands?
>> +1 -- automatic subdividers between the commands of different script
>> would also be very useful. If menu entries can have hover tooltips,
>> tossing in the script name there would be another improvement in
>> similar scope while at it.
> 
> Ok, I don't feel strongly one way or the other about this.

Not sure if this violates any GUI guidelines or is otherwise frowned 
upon, but perhaps putting script names as grayed out menu items would be 
better than tooltips? So

Tools > Greasemonkey >
	Install, manage etc
	--
	[Script one]
	Command one
	Command two
	--
	[Script two]
	Command three

where [] represents inactive/grayed out.

>>> For a more future version (as I imagine it would be a bigger job), some
>>> kind of version number support? So the version number can somehow be a
>>> part of the shown script name (both in GM and userscripts.org), without
>>> it having to have a different name and therefore be considered by GM to
>>> be a different script?
>> +1 -- pretty pretty please? Just showing a @version line prefixed
>> "Version: " in the install UI would work wonders.
> 
> I agree, this would be nice. I think a freetext version would be fun.
> So you could name them things like "ducky", "jello pudding", etc.
> Obviously this loses the ability to compare numerically.

:D Well, any numbers could be parsed out before comparisons, e.g. you 
could do "1.1 - Ducky", "1.2 - Jello pudding". and compare those.

-- 
Henrik Nyh
http://henrik.nyh.se