Closed pstein closed 3 weeks ago
Greasemonkey has no @exclude-match
support either.
@exclude-match
is urgently recommended over@exclude
@pstein Why should a non-standard @exclude-match
be preferred over a standard @exclude
that is recognized by all userscript managers?
@exclude-match
is urgently recommended over@exclude
@pstein Why should a non-standard
@exclude-match
be preferred over a standard@exclude
that is recognized by all userscript managers?
Maybe because of this:
https://github.com/quoid/userscripts/issues/650
and this ("all major browsers and script managers support @match"):
https://github.com/quoid/userscripts/issues/649#issuecomment-2085725872
Greasemonkey has no
@exclude-match
support either.
But VM has.
Maybe because of this:
Though @exclude-match
should be a bit more performant, it doesn't increase security like @match
.
Plus, @match
/@exlude-match
is less precise than @include
/@exclude
due to simple matching patterns.
And it doesn't make sense to get rid entirely of @include
and @exclude
because thousands of userscripts still use them, and nobody will update them, or it's tricky because @match
is more coarse.
I imported a couple of Greasemonkey *.user.js scripts from Firefox into Tampermonkey on Chrome.
When I look at them the left of the lines
//@exclude-match ....
a yellow exclamation mark is show with the text:
"@exclude-match" is not a valid userscript header"
So why is @exclude-match still not supported in Tampermonkey? @exclude-match is urgently recommended over @exclude
How can I fix it (for ALL SCRIPTS AT ONCE) in Tampermonkey WebExt on Chrome?
Do I really have to change all *.user scripts manually to @exclude?