ID:260586
 
I think it would be a freaking lifesaver to have a better way to rename icon states. Double clicking and having the pop-up box then hitting enter when you are done or clicking it once, waiting a sec and clicking it again to avoid the pop-up, they're both fine methods...for like a handful of icons. After like 50 it gets painstaking. Currently, I'm about to rename 195. and I have a lot more coming.

ATM, I can't think of any better way, but there has to be one. Maybe if while renaming them, I could hit tab to go the next one? Even something as simple as that.

[EDIT] Also, while I'm here, what ever happened to copy/paste for icon states. I have to rename them again or else I can't move them. Makes for an organizational pain.
Hiro the Dragon King wrote:
I think it would be a freaking lifesaver to have a better way to rename icon states. Double clicking and having the pop-up box then hitting enter when you are done or clicking it once, waiting a sec and clicking it again to avoid the pop-up, they're both fine methods...for like a handful of icons. After like 50 it gets painstaking. Currently, I'm about to rename 195. and I have a lot more coming.

You can use the keyboard. Use arrows to move between icons, and hit F2 to rename.

Lummox JR
In response to Lummox JR
Lummox JR wrote:
And hit F2 to rename.

Wow. That is a bit more convenient.

What about the copy/paste thing though? When you paster them, it numbers them. Is that intended behaviour? If so, why? That is quite annoying.
In response to Hiro the Dragon King
It's obviously intended behavior, or it wouldn't number them properly. It does it, though, so there won't be duplicate definitions in the file, which could cause problems. It'd be nice if there was a way to set the naming format when copying and pasting, though.
In response to Popisfizzy
Popisfizzy wrote:
It does it, though, so there won't be duplicate definitions in the file...

Is that the same case for cut/paste? Why would it leave out the state name when you cut/paste icons? Unless your pasting them into a different DMI file, there wouldn't be the need to prevent duplicate definitions.

[EDIT]
Popfizzy wrote:
It's obviously intended behavior...

I realized that. There was a bit of sarcasm (not really sarcasm but...something) to the question and at the time of writing I kinda lasped judgement on the fact that people could understand it in text.