@Evelyn-Walker ,

I tested the behavior you described. In Notepad++ the Ctrl+L (Delete Line) command

That is wrong terminology, as already described above. Ctrl+L is Line Cut, not Line Delete. To use the wrong terms causes confusion for everyone. From the OP, it was acceptible, because they didn’t know better. But to post like you are an authority, but to use the incorrect terminology, is detrimental to yourself and anyone who reads the answers here.

internally performs a cut-like operation,

Of course it does. It’s literally Line Cut, so it definitionally affects the clipboard

which means the deleted line is temporarily placed into the clipboard.

It’s no more “temporarily” on the clipboard than any Ctrl+C or Ctrl+X is “temporarily” in the clipboard. It’s in the clipboard until something else replaces it, just like every other clipboard action.

Use Ctrl+Shift+L (if configured) or another plugin/command that deletes the line without copying it.

Did you come up with that alternative all on your own, or did you just reiterate what @guy038 and I had already said?

Alternatively, copy the text again after performing line deletions if you still need it in the clipboard.

That’s horrible advice.

If preserving clipboard content during line deletion is important, it could be considered as a feature request rather than a bug.

No it couldn’t, because the feature already exists. Line Delete already exists as Ctrl+Shift+L: use Line Delete if you don’t want to affect the clipboard, and Line Cut if you do want to affect the clipboard.

@Evelyn-Walker , make sure you are not using LLM or GPT or any other AI to write your posts for you: that’s expressly forbidden in this forum.

@Troglo37 ,

You may need UAC / Admin permission to write to the Plugins directory.

If PythonScript 2.1 is still there, you didn’t delete the right directory.

I told you what information we would need to help you further, and you chose to not share it

Good luck.

Hi Harmandeep,

Welcome to the community.

Yes, there is a good chance you may still be able to recover your unsaved work. Notepad++ has a built-in backup and session snapshot feature that often restores files after a crash.

First, try reopening Notepad++. If the session snapshot feature was enabled, the file may reopen automatically with the content you were working on before the crash.

You can also check the backup folder manually. Go to:
C:\Users\YourUsername\AppData\Roaming\Notepad++\backup
Sometimes Notepad++ stores temporary backup files there, which may contain the unsaved content.

To reduce the risk of losing data in the future, it’s a good idea to enable a few settings:

Open Settings → Preferences → Backup. Enable Session snapshot and periodic backup. Choose Remember current session for next launch. Set a backup interval such as every 7 or 10 seconds.

With these options enabled, Notepad++ will automatically save temporary snapshots of your work and restore them if the program closes unexpectedly.

Hopefully your file is still in the backup folder. Let us know if you need help locating it.

Regards.

@P-A hasn’t come back since my reply. But I had a few minutes to experiment.

Using the published v8.9.2, I could replicate the problem:

Open fresh v8.9.2 Language > User Defined Language > Define your language… Folding in code 2 style: open = openfold, close = closefold Save as… = SomethingNew open disappears, but close remains Exit and restart Notepad++ Language > User Defined Language > Define your language…, choose UserLanguage: SomethingNew Folding in code 2 style> open still missing, but close remains Add again open = openfold, and close the UDL dialog: it appears to be there, but repeating 6/7 will show back in condition 8 at this point.

But, when I try the same sequence with the bugfix version from PR#17522, it works as expected (openfold doesn’t go missing at all).

That PR will be part of v8.9.3 Release Candidate, expected Mar 14. So it looks to me like the bug has already been fixed.

@Vitalii-Dovgan
Thanks for the feedback!
v1.1 is now out with full Unicode compliance - all Win32 API calls migrated to W variants.
Also added separate color settings for dark and light themes.

GitHub

@Linen-Gray said in Adblock360Updater Batch File Keeps Appearing:

but wanted to know if anyone else had experienced this happening and if so how they took care of it.

Well if you are certain your system isn’t infected then that is a step in the right direction. Just understand that according to the bat file’s contents the “malware” had been apparently residing in the location referenced in almost every line. I would still take a look at that location to be absolutely sure it is gone.

I am re-reading your initial post and trying to understand what is occurring. You say this “bat” file is opening regularly. What is the app that is opening this file? If it is Notepad++ (the “bat” file shows within a Notepad++ tab), then try to identify the location of that file. It should show the location if you move the mouse pointer over the tab’s title line. Then open that location to have a better look around, you should be able to right click on the tab’s title line and select Open into… and select the Explorer line. Once you are happy that you can delete the file, just close it in Notepad++ and then remove it from the location.

So in terms of the question has any one else experienced this issue, the answer is no, no one else has mentioned this on this forum. You could easily do a forum search on the string “adblock” but you won’t find this specific one, just mentions of “real” adblock apps.

Terry

@Alan-Kilborn

I understand, but unfortunately, to have it hosted on the App Store, Apple charges £80 a year for the developer license, so I need to cover this cost, hence the 99p price.

Hi, @kjell-rilbe, @peterjones, @Coises and All,

In my previous post, I said :

I did not need to use the atomic forms *+

I did additional tests and there a difference of execution time between the two solutions : greedy quantifiers vs atomic quantifiers

If I use the same test file , containing 524,288 correct lines, so with 0 match :

line 1 : one;two;three;four;five;six;seven;eight;nine;ten;eleven;twelve;end line 524288 : one;two;three;four;five;six;seven;eight;nine;ten;eleven;twelve;end

The regex ^[^;\r\n]*(?:;[^;\r\n]*){12}$(*SKIP)(*F)|^.+$ displays the message Mark: 0 matches in entire file after between 1.65s and 1.71s

The regex ^[^;\r\n]*+(?:;[^;\r\n]*+){12}+$(*SKIP)(*F)|^.+ displays the message Mark: 0 matches in entire file after between 1.45s and 1.51s

Now, if I add the six incorrect lines below, at the very end of the test file :

line 524289 : one;two;three;four;five;six;seven;eight;nine;ten;eleven;end line 524290 : one;two;three;four;five;six;seven;eight;nine;ten;eleven;twelve;thirteen;end line 524291 : one;two;three;four;five;six;seven;eight;nine;ten;end line 524292 : one;two;three;four;five;six;seven;eight;nine;ten;eleven;twelve;thirteen;fourteen;end line 524293 : one line 524294 : ;two line 524295 :

The regex ^[^;\r\n]*(?:;[^;\r\n]*){12}$(*SKIP)(*F)|^.+$ displays the message : Mark: 6 matches in entire file after between 1.58s and 1.65s

The regex ^[^;\r\n]*+(?:;[^;\r\n]*+){12}+$(*SKIP)(*F)|^.+ displays the message Mark: 6 matches in entire file after between 1.45s and 1.51s

Remark that, if the Match case option is not checked, the execution time increases significantly ( between 6.1s and 6.2s ) :-((

I repeated each test many times to obtain average values !

Best Regards,

guy038

Of course, the . matches new line option is not cheched and the Wrap around option is checked