No, I didn’t.

Glad to hear that, thanks! 👍🏻

Even so, it would require developers to do development work.

That’s always the basic requirement for any software change & NSIS would be way simpler than C++, at least for me… 😉

I think there is some amount of this going on.

Again, glad to hear that! 👏🏻

It sounds as if you have some development expertise.

Correct.

A good way to get a change you want is to develop it yourself and submit it for inclusion.
Just a thought.

Prerequisite for that is a confirmation it’s doable in NSIS & desired to be done there - because I neither have enough knowledge to write C++ code nor think can afford enough leisure time to learn the required amount.

Fun fact: I’ve done quite some stuff with NSIS & it’s “IDE” a couple of years ago - with actual “coding” done in N++ & using the “NSIS IDE” only for compiling… 😅

Seems like you interpreted my request as kinda “Do it! NOW!!!”-sounding.

No, I didn’t.

request a feature that I think requires no actual change in N++'s core, but rather additions to maybe the NSIS installer

Even so, it would require developers to do development work.

While I do agree with the basic message behind what you’re saying, I do suggest to triage issues via labels, i. e. rejected, accepted or better yet, something like next-release or next-year, etc.

I think there is some amount of this going on.

It sounds as if you have some development expertise.
A good way to get a change you want is to develop it yourself and submit it for inclusion.
Just a thought.

It is probably because, for most users, it isn’t that valuable of a feature.
Developers of Notepad++ are an “all volunteer” force, and as such have to pick and choose what development work to do with their limited available time. They can’t tackle everything.

Seems like you interpreted my request as kinda “Do it! NOW!!!111”-sounding.
If that’s true, I want to immediately apologize for that as it wasn’t even my intention to sound like that - quite the contrary was actually my goal: keeping it down to objective terms & referring to the older post just to make clear that there’s no sufficient answer yet & I can’t post there anymore due to the thread being locked.

Additionally, coding in C# as my day job, I totally agree with your argument about limited time available. Again, I was just trying to kindly request a feature that I think requires no actual change in N++'s core, but rather additions to maybe the NSIS installer so that Windows knows of N++'s power better & leverages it where appropriate - if ever by the user.

Sometimes people think that just because an issue is opened, that their request will be completed and integrated in. This is simply not the case.

While I do agree with the basic message behind what you’re saying, I do suggest to triage issues via labels, i. e. rejected, accepted or better yet, something like next-release or next-year, etc.
This way, it’s immediately clear for anyone if it’s even considered or not & documented for similar requests in the future.

It is probably because, for most users, it isn’t that valuable of a feature.
Developers of Notepad++ are an “all volunteer” force, and as such have to pick and choose what development work to do with their limited available time. They can’t tackle everything.

There’s even an open GitHub issue in N++'s repository for such feature, but almost 2 years later, no actual progress has been made

Sometimes people think that just because an issue is opened, that their request will be completed and integrated in. This is simply not the case.