Userscripts.org

I see a lot of scripts that use two lines for HTTP and HTTPS requests, something like:
"http://foo.bar"
"https://foo.bar"

Now, I'll admit I have a problem. I love elegance and I just can't stop. I try to stay away, but I just keep reducing and purifying code until it's a work of art.

So my question is: Can anyone think of a practical reason not to use "http*://foo.bar" instead?

This brings up an interesting point: what's the regex support for the includes/excludes? If it only supports *, then you're stuck with two... if it uses standard javascript regexes, you can do a single, optional character to handle it.

-Joel

Good call, Mr. Scum. I checked the wiki, but I didn't spend much time on it... I figured someone clever would be more thorough than myself. :)

And Joel also raises a good point. I could think of some scripts that would be nice to run on things that match certain complicated patterns that involve "/forums/".

* is not regex - that would be .* .
I'm sure they're just wildcards - probably * any number of characters and ? for any single character.
I think you'd want a regex like
http(s)?://([^/]+\.)?domain\.com/.*

But since it supports the key "tld" it might be better to use keys like http(s), (domain) and (sub) for any or no subdomain
So you could do the same as above with
http(s)://(sub)domain.com/*
or any userscripts forum
http(s)://(sub)userscripts.tld/forums/*
or any .com forum
http(s)://(domain).com/forums/*

No regexp support, just the * wildcard and the magic tld. See http://wiki.greasespot.net/Include_and_exclude_....

Full(er) regexp support or smarter wildcars have been discussed on the mailing list. Can't recall what happened with it; probably got bogged down in conflicting opinions, or no one has been inclined to write the code.