F-key customization

In ACAD 2004 I would like to change some of the F-key customizations. I
read elsewhere in the AutoCAD site that this issue was discussed in this
newsgroup on June 24, 2004, but I don't know how to get that thread.

 

This is how we do it, place your customization in your mns file.

***ACCELERATORS
["F3"]endp
["F4"]int
["F5"]mid
["F6"]cen
["F7"]per
["F10"]nea
["F11"]ins
["F12"]nod
[CONTROL+"W"]nea
[CONTROL+"D"]quad
[CONTROL+"T"]tan

 

I've used this with success in ACAD 2000, but it seems that in ACAD 2004 it
interrupts other macros. Maybe I'm placing it in the wrong MNS?

 

It doesn't go in the mns, it goes in the mnu.

 

How does that make a difference??

 

Use the Search bar for "ACCELERATORS", returns 111 results. Maybe one would help.
As far as .mnu / .mns there is no difference that I know of.
I always edit the .mnu / compile and spin-off the .mns.
Bob

 

That was my point, there's no difference that I know between editing the mnu
and mns, *except* for the fact that the mnu isn't used by Acad at all, other
than to create a new mns during compilation, and then only if you force it.
Whereas the mns is changed every time you manipulate a toolbar. So if you go
back to an mnu and change it manually, it will overwrite the last mns and
destroy any interactive changes that were made in the mns since last time
the mnu was compiled. Hence the warning you get on loading an mnu as opposed
to an mns.

It's simpler and safer, IMHO, to just edit the mns, which is the file that
is actually in use by Acad as the source for the current compiled menu. My
only use of an mnu is as a backup ... which is how Acad describes it. It
isn't used by Acad at all unless you force it to be used. So when you have a
stable, functional menu, if you're worried about it getting messed up, copy
the active mns to an mnu and that's your backup. If the user messes up his
mns (which happens), delete it and copy the last-known-good menu backup (the
mnu) as an mns again and let it recompile.

AFAIK, the mnu file is really just a carryover from the ancient days when
the Acad menu wasn't compiled at all. I haven't directly edited or compiled
an mnu file since the mns came along (Release 12??).

I was surprised by Rudy's statement and I wondered if there was some
fundamental thing I'm missing here.

 

To each his own I suppose, but I *only* edit the MNU file. No, I never make any menu/toolbar changes through the graphical interface.
If a person edits the MNS, and then either himself or someone else comes along and reloads the MNU...
[Note: Yes, I know about the warning - and have watched people do this - about 7 out of 10 don't read it, they just press Yes, and 2 more out of 10 read it, but don't understand what it means - then press Yes]

....anyway, as soon as the MNU is loaded - bye-bye MNS, MNC, MNR....

I can't see any downside to only editing the MNU, other than it takes slightly longer to load.
Of course if you like fooling with the graphical toolbar interface, then of course you would have to cut/paste from the MNS into the MNU before reloading....

 

Is there a problem copying the .mns file to a new .mnu file? (After
piously saving the original .mnu file to a safe place?)

rs

 

No. Just remember that any comments you might have placed in the .mnu file
will be gone.

I deleted the .mnu entirely, to no detriment (I have the menu files in a
read-only file for the users on the network, so only I can mess it up).


--
R. Robert Bell, MCSE
www.AcadX.com


| Is there a problem copying the .mns file to a new .mnu file? (After
| piously saving the original .mnu file to a safe place?)
|
| rs
|
|

 

I don't think there's a real downside to editing the mnu, aside from the
small aggravations and extra steps you mention, which tend to support my
view that it's a bit simpler and a bit safer to deal directly with the mns.
I do copy my current mns to mnu as a backup, but that's just in the
read-only place where I fool with it. I distribute only the mns file (and
associated images) to users. They don't have an mnu at all, so they can't
mess anything up by ignoring a warning.

For customizing toolbars, I sometimes "mock up" a button interactively, but
then go back and hand-edit the resultant mns to make sure the image
reference is correct. And then I'm done, having no reason to cut and paste
anything elsewhere.

The docs say comments are lost from mnu to mns, as Robert mentions, but that
is only true if you edit the mnu -- Acad strips out comments when it creates
the mns. But if you place them in the mns yourself, they stay there. This is
one small benefit of skipping the mnu format.

As you say, to each his own, this has been beaten to death before, and
caused no end of confusion for people trying to learn menu customization.
IMHO, if Acad had eliminated the mnu format back when they essentially made
it obsolete, this wouldn't be an issue, but apparently they thought it was
one of those "compatibility" things that needed to linger on, like (vmon).

To each his own I suppose, but I *only* edit the MNU file. No, I never make
any menu/toolbar changes through the graphical interface.
If a person edits the MNS, and then either himself or someone else comes
along and reloads the MNU...
[Note: Yes, I know about the warning - and have watched people do this -
about 7 out of 10 don't read it, they just press Yes, and 2 more out of 10
read it, but don't understand what it means - then press Yes]

....anyway, as soon as the MNU is loaded - bye-bye MNS, MNC, MNR....

I can't see any downside to only editing the MNU, other than it takes
slightly longer to load.
Of course if you like fooling with the graphical toolbar interface, then of
course you would have to cut/paste from the MNS into the MNU before
reloading....

 

:

Tom,

Placing the accelerators in the MNU file (NOT MNL) assures
the keys will be recompiled when the MNS MNC and MNR
files are deliberately deleted:

1) To start over with your customizations...
2) When debugging warrants this type of action...
3) When a new employee arrives and uses an existing
station that has been cleaned out.


Makes any sense?


Scot-65

 

Customizing the mns results in the automatic recompilation of the mnc and
mnr next time Acad opens, without any necessity to delete anything. The mnu
is not used by Acad at all. It's described as a "template" or a backup,
whereas the mns is the "source" file.

 

That is why you need to put the ACCELERATORS in the MNU file

No, I don't need to put anything in an MNU file. I don't have an MNU file
anywhere on my system. It's an obsolete filetype, which is not used by Acad
in any way, and as Mark Middlebrook says, the file extension is apparently
maintained for the sole purpose of confusing people.

 

Obsolete? I use it everyday.

The MENU and MENULOAD commands still let you load an .MNU file....

The AutoCAD documentation states: "The default menu file is acad.mnu."

The AutoCAD documentation also states: .MNU file = Original ASCII menu
file, the file you normally edit or create.

etc., etc.


Maybe your method of handling menus doesn't require an .MNU file, but
it's not 'obsolete', as you state.

 

I suppose we could debate the "obsolete" versus" deprecated" versus "inexplicably held over from past versions." The best description might be "completely nonessential." Bottom line, it's not what it once was. I agree with Mark Middlebrook's description:

"menuname.MNU: Menu template or "pre-source" file. The MNU file is a vestige from the old MS-DOS days, when it was the file that you'd edit in order to customize a menu. It's only purpose now is to confuse you and to give AutoCAD the opportunity to obliterate your menu customization. You should delete it and edit the MNS file instead."

http://www.markcad.com/autocad/acadmenus.htm

As Matt says, you can eliminate the baggage of mnu files altogether, as I've done, work exclusively with the "menu source" file, and everything works swimmingly. This saves a few steps, eliminates the toolbar destruction scenario, and allows you to comment your menu.

To me, if a system has changed such that a once-essential part is no longer needed at all, and you can reduce effort and eliminate the possibility of one problem by simply removing the part, then it isn't a stretch to call that part obsolete.