Minor feature suggestions for OS 4.2

@Tuvok

Quote:
OS4 is not exactly standing still either at present.

@TheMagicSN

Quote:

Correct, you didn't. But Mac sales was the only other source of income I ever saw attributed to Hyperion, and having read/skimmed the various Amiga, Inc. "lawsuit" documents on another site and the debts cited, it was a logical conclusion. (Not to mention that more than one former developer has stated publicly or privately about getting stiffed.) It was still eye-opening.

Quote:

As was this.

@Tuvok
Quote:
In the kt_scripts archive on OS4Depot you will find a script named "CleanDrawer" that makes it easier to clean up and snapshot a drawer via a requester.

Adding this functionality to the Workbench menus would be great.
No more multiple menu selections to cleanup an snapshot drawers.

@ktadd

I already use some scripts from 3.5 / 3.9 and THE. But I'll have a look at the scripts, thank you.

What's a little ugly is, that adding shortcuts with ARexx scripts will not reflect the changes in the menu, i.e. the new shortcut letter does not show in the menu.

e.g. I like the shortcut RAmiga-DEL or RAmiga-Backspace to delete icons, instead of RightAmiga-d, which IMHO would fit much more as a shortcut to "duplicate icon" and RightAmiga-c (copy) to work the same as it does in gadgets.
When I set RightAmiga-backspace to delete an icon, even tho it works, the menu will not show the new shortcut, but only show RightAmiga-d.

@Tuvok

If you define new menu entries for Workbench using ARexx, you can specify the shortcuts and they will appear next to the item name.
I'm not sure if all combos can be displayed as I only use Amiga+letter shortcuts.

A long time ago I released AddMenu: http://aminet.net/package/util/wb/AddMenu which shows how to add custom menus with ARexx, maybe it's helpful.

@tao

Fix (or enhance) name sorting in Workbench (or is it a dependency in locale?)

e.g. on the Workbench the files below sorted by name are displayed in the following order.

filename_09.txt
filename_1.txt
filename_10.txt
filename_12.txt
filename_123.txt
filename_13.txt
filename_2.txt
filename_20.txt
filename_3.txt
filename_830.txt
filename_9.txt

Seems wrong. Mathematically ist seems more correct like this:

filename_1.txt
filename_2txt
filename_3.txt
filename_9.txt
filename_09.txt
filename_12.txt
filename_13.txt
filename_20.txt
filename_123.txt
filename_830.txt

@Tuvok

but names are strings and no numbers. they will be sorted alphabetically.
so this is the expected result.

regards...
michael