@PeterJones I was looking at style for CDATA instead of SGML, so that explains it. Thanks a lot for the help!!

@Troglo37 said: @Coises How and where do I put that? Find/Replace dialog, Find What. And set Search Mode = Regular Expression

Seems they decided that it they couldn’t be the heroes, rhat they would be the villains.

@M-Andre-Z-Eckenrode said: Possible v8.9.7 bug? I wouldn’t call it a bug. v8.9.7 intentionally made sure that running a Macro performed the same HMAC check as running a Run menu entry. If your PythonScript runs a menu command (either a macro or a run-menu command, especially), it would also trigger that check. Or, if you hadn’t used any of the intervening v8.9.6.2-4 subversions, then your HMAC would never have been updated, and Notepad++ would demand a single validate to your custom shortcuts, becaus of your PythonScript shortcut.

Hello, @coises and All, You said : There are limitations, not yet formally documented, to the way Search++ handles encodings for Search in Files: 1. UTF-16 files without a byte order mark are not recognized as such. (They’ll be misread as something else.) 2. UTF-8 files without a byte order mark that contain any invalid UTF-8 sequences will be processed using the system default (ANSI) code page. 3. Pure ASCII files are processed as UTF-8. (This doesn’t matter for Find, but I will have to review it when I implement Replace, since someone might include non-ASCII characters in the replacement text. I think there will have to be a user control to determine whether to promote ASCII to ANSI or to UTF-8.) 4. Files without a byte order mark that are not pure ASCII and contain any invalid UTF-8 characters are processed using the system default code page. No attempt is made to detect whether a different legacy code page is more likely to be correct, or is explicitly declared within the file. Thanks for this extra information ! FYI, during all my tests, the Autodetect character encoding option, in Settings > Preferences… > MISC, was checked and all the files, described in the P.S. section of my previous post, contain a Byte Order Mark ( BOM ). Here is the list of all UTF-16 files of my D: USB key •------------•--------------------------------------------------------------•-----------------•---------------------•--------------------• | | | | Multi-Replace | Search++ / N++ | | BOM | File | Encoding | Matches 'Fi' | Matches 'Fi' | •------------•--------------------------------------------------------------•-----------------•---------------------•--------------------• | FE FF | D:\Plane_0_UCS-2_BE.txt | UTF-16 BE BOM | 2 | 0 | | FE FF | D:\Planes_0+1_UTF-16.txt | UTF-16 BE BOM | 2 | 0 | •------------•--------------------------------------------------------------•-----------------•---------------------•--------------------• | FF FE | D:\862_x64\plugins\NppExec\doc\NppExec\NppExec_HelpAll.txt | UTF-16 LE BOM | 0 | 31 | | FF FE | D:\Plane_0_UCS-2_LE.txt | UTF-16 LE BOM | 2 | 0 | | FF FE | D:\862_x64\plugins\Config\npec_cmdhistory.txt | UTF-16 LE BOM | 0 | 0 | | FF FE | D:\862_x64\plugins\Config\npes_last.txt | UTF-16 LE BOM | 0 | 0 | •------------•--------------------------------------------------------------•-----------------•---------------------•--------------------• | | Total | | 3 Files / 6 hits | 1 File / 31 hits | •------------•--------------------------------------------------------------•-----------------•---------------------•--------------------• Notes : The correct results are reported in the last column My USB key also contains 49 UTF-8-BOM files ( EF BB BF ) correctly detected by all the search engines ! Now, based on my test, have you conducted any similar tests of your own, and have you found that searching with Search++ also takes longer compared to the native search in N++ ? Of course, I can run more tests myself, but I imagine your tests would be more valuable and might, perhaps, give you some ideas on how to increase the overall search speed with Search++ I’m really curious to hear your own observations ! Best Regards, guy038

@harry-brookes , @peterjones “the devil is in the details” And there are more details than I knew existed. The details have details. It’s easy for a naïve multi-threaded implementation to be slower than a single-threaded implementation, as was demonstrated when @guy038 ran a test of my search on a folder on a USB stick. I’m working now on improving it. It’s incredible how many ways there are to shoot yourself in the foot with multi-threading. I’ll feel validated if I can come up with something that is sometimes better than single-threaded and never worse than single-threaded. It remains to be seen if I can do it.

@Sam-Fourie , It’s been suggested before, as in issue #17430. The developer stated explicitly: It’s not my intesion to “lock” the document by using “Pin a document”. It’s just a way to make the documents grouped in front so users find them more easily. Checked with MS VC Studio, their behaviour is the same as Notepad++, and I think it’s the right behaviour. It works the way the developer wants, and he has rejected the suggestion to make it work the way you want. update: I’m not saying it’s not a good idea. Just that the developer (who is the final decision maker) is the one you’d need to convince. And, given that he’s already rejected the idea, you’d have to come up with something more than “I really want it” to convince him otherwise (and it would have to be posted in the issues tracker, presumably as a reply to the issue I linked, not in the user Community).

User Manual has been updated: Renamed header to “shortcuts.xml Security” and includes mention of Macros as well: https://npp-user-manual.org/docs/config-files/#shortcutsxml-security added Macros Security on the macros page: https://npp-user-manual.org/docs/macros/#macro-security added a paragraph linking to the “shortcuts.xml Security” page in the Running External Commands page: https://npp-user-manual.org/docs/run-menu/#security-is-your-responsibility

For anyone who wants to get rid of that annoying “This file has been modified… Do you want to reload it…” prompt/dialog box, do the following: Go to Settings Click Preferences Click MISC. Under “File Status Auto-Detection” click Disable from the drop-down menu Close

Ah ok. So just noticed this has been implemented after updating to 8.9.7. How do I get around the dialog coming up “security information for shortcuts.xml is missing in config.xml” when I deploy this to multiple computers? I have a “master copy” of a portable installation on a network drive, then update that whenever a new version comes out. There is a batch file on a “client” PC that basically copies that folder from the network drive to a local drive on the client. So every client, whenever they first use a macro, gets this warning and has to validate the shortcuts.xml file. How do I stop this from happening, i.e. how can I make the shortcuts.xml file “trusted” in the master copy on the network drive, so it appears trusted on any other client that happens to download it?

@Elayne-T , Do you have your ?-menu’s Debug Info? Do you have plugins in Notepad++ that might be doing something in the background? (Maybe a plugin has popped up a dialog, but because they didn’t code it right, the dialog doesn’t go in fron of Notepad++'s always-in-front.) Do you have a file open that requires Admin privileges to write/save? If so, maybe Windows has popped up the UAC, but it didn’t get to take your full screen like it normally would (the UAC shield icon would be on your taskbar if it’s an issue with the UAC) Do you have anything other than Notepad++ and your browser running? Do you have any applications like AutoHotKey, which assign global hotkeys that maybe it’s interpreting some sequence of keystrokes you are using to Does your browser have any extensions/plugins that might be trying to steal focus away from Notepad++? It will be easier to replicate and find if you give as many details and pieces of relevant information as possible, otherwise something as nebulous an unrepeatable as this is going to be difficult to find. update: one more idea: in the older posts, they mentioned that they’d click in Notepad++ to activate, then after a few seconds of typing, the focus would be lost. Is that the case for you? If so, did you leave the mouse pointer somewhere over the Notepad++ window when you started typing? Or does the mouse pointer start drifting off accidentally (maybe you bumped the mouse while typing, or it gets shaken while you type fervently)? Or does the mouse pointer get moved off intentionally (for example, when I was experimenting with always-on-top, I would move the mouse pointer back over the Chrome window, then use the scrollwheel to scroll the browser tab without clicking in the browser). If your mouse pointer is back to being over the browser (or some third app), maybe something in that other app grabs focus when you leave your mouse lingering over it (I know that some linux GUI will give apps focus whenever the cursor hovers over them, even if they haven’t been clicked to the foreground… maybe some other app – your browser or something else – has given itself such a feature, even on Windows.)