Macros editing

[henryg]

Why after all these years is it still not possible to edit macros?

I can export and import macros, but not change them. So if I want to make the simplest of small changes to a long macro,  it seems I still have to recreate the whole thing.

This is more than pathetic IMO

[Old Bruce]

I can do so to a degree by selecting the Macro in the Library and with a right click I can choose Edit Macro. Note that I should save the edited Macro under a different name.

[R C-R]

31 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

I can do so to a degree...

It's the same limited degree as in V1: there is no way to insert a new step anywhere except at the end, & no way to remove (only disable) a step already recorded.

[RichardMH]

And no shortcuts to run macros.

[carl123]

8 hours ago, R C-R said:

It's the same limited degree as in V1: there is no way to insert a new step anywhere except at the end

For a long/complex macro that you do not want to redo from scratch

Split the macro into 2 macros...

The first macro contains all the original steps up to the new step(s) you want to add (call it Part1)

The second macro contains all the original steps after the step(s) you want to add (call it Part2)

Create a new macro with the step(s) you want to add and call it Part1b

Now at the end of the Part1 macro insert the command to run the macro called Part1b

and at the end of the Part1b macro insert the command to run the macro called Part2

 

[carl123]

15 hours ago, henryg said:

Why after all these years is it still not possible to edit macros?

Possibly because they are working on scripting, which "should" be more powerful than macros?

[henryg]

3 hours ago, carl123 said:

For a long/complex macro that you do not want to redo from scratch

Split the macro into 2 macros...

The first macro contains all the original steps up to the new step(s) you want to add (call it Part1)

The second macro contains all the original steps after the step(s) you want to add (call it Part2)

Create a new macro with the step(s) you want to add and call it Part1b

Now at the end of the Part1 macro insert the command to run the macro called Part1b

and at the end of the Part1b macro insert the command to run the macro called Part2

 

Thank you for the suggestion and I'll give it a try.

[Lisbon]

I remember, when I was using Photoshop, there was a script that allowed to decompile actions and edit them in a text editor.
If memory serves me correctly, I believe in xml format.
It would be great if we had this possibility while we wait for better macro editing features.
Maybe a tool to decompile/recompile macros? Just an idea.

[R C-R]

12 hours ago, carl123 said:

For a long/complex macro that you do not want to redo from scratch

Split the macro into 2 macros...

OK, I give up. How specifically can you 'split' an existing macro? Like I mentioned earlier, I can disable a step & save a new version of it, but that is not the same thing as removing any of its steps, & even if it did, would not I have to duplicate the larger macro & remove steps from both?

[carl123]

9 hours ago, R C-R said:

OK, I give up. How specifically can you 'split' an existing macro?

Say you have a 10 step macro and want to insert a step after step 5

First disable steps 6 to 10 and save that as Part1

Then reenable those steps and disable steps 1 to 5 save that as Part2

Then follow instructions shown previously to create Part1b and "link" all 3 macros together

[R C-R]

Just now, carl123 said:

First disable steps 6 to 10 and save that as Part1

As I said above, disabling a step does not remove it from the macro. I think what the OP (& I) would like to see is a way to reorder, remove, & otherwise edit macros without the need for tedious duplications & other clumsy workarounds in simple, straightforward ways, like dragging to reorder or right-clicking to remove a step.

[carl123]

8 minutes ago, R C-R said:

As I said above, disabling a step does not remove it from the macro.

Nobody has said it does

We have to work within the limitations of the current implementation of macros if we want to get on with our work

[R C-R]

24 minutes ago, carl123 said:

We have to work within the limitations of the current implementation of macros if we want to get on with our work

Please reread what the OP said about this; that is, why we are still limited in this way.

[carl123]

2 minutes ago, R C-R said:

Please reread what the OP said about this; that is, why we are still limited in this way.

Not only did I read it but I directly addressed that specific point as well - in my second post to this thread

Quote: "Possibly because they are working on scripting, which "should" be more powerful than macros?"

[henryg]

Unfortunately, breaking up the macro doesn't work for me.

I simply don't understand why, if it can record macro steps, that sequence can't be saved in an editable form.

Lamentable omission from V1 let alone V2.

[R C-R]

11 hours ago, carl123 said:

Not only did I read it but I directly addressed that specific point as well - in my second post to this thread

Quote: "Possibly because they are working on scripting, which "should" be more powerful than macros?"

Scripting & better editing in the existing macro feature are two different things.

[T V]

As far as I understand, after writing hundreds of if not thousands of macros, is that it is still a process that is driven by keystrokes.  When creating macros the order of actions as well as, hidden actions that are recorded as unseen function within the recording.  It is very hard to create a perfect keystroke macro.  Undoubtedly, we all make mistakes typing and then deleting which are all recorded in the process whether you can see it or not, make the macro less than streamlined.  This would create problems in an editor since the unseen actions could trip up the flow that it was originally following.   Creating subroutines in macros can help to solve some of those problems.  Not only that, but, the macros can function much faster because they tend to be smaller and generally cleaner than a really long macro...I have created macros with over 400 commands much of which had many repetitive processes.  Not fun to try to redo, but, hey, that's what learning is for...The other reason that I can see why this has not been radically altered is that there is already a lot of great macros available for free that still function perfectly and nobody, including myself, wants to rewrite all of them.  When they are complicated, I write them out by hand on paper and then follow the flow until I get the rhythm just right, or not, depends on the user.     - TV