Community
For situations where that has already happened, you can give them meaningful names without needing to keep track of which oddball names PasteBlock gave to which Blocks, by using the RenameBlock.lsp routine here, with its RB command [which stands for, as you might expect, Rename Block]. But I agree it would nice if PasteBlock asked for a name in the process.
Kent Cooper, AIA 
@hmsilva wrote:
A way that occurs to me is "UNDEFINE" command...
....
And let's not stop there -- let's define a new PasteBlock command! The attached PasteBlockWithName.lsp Undefines the original PASTEBLOCK command, and Redefines it in such a way that the User is required to supply a name before pasting in the Block. It then lets them paste it in, and immediately Renames it with the name they supplied, so that the wacky name is no longer present. It will work whether they type the PasteBlock command name or pick it from a menu or use Ctrl+Shift+V.
Put the .lsp file [unzipped out of the attachment] in some folder in the Support File Search Path list, and put
(load "PasteBlockWithName")
into your acaddoc.lsp file, and it will always be redefined.
The original command will, of course, always be available, if you really have a need for it [or for a knowledgeable-enough troublemaker User], by preceding the typed command name with a period. Alternatively, you could follow the instructions in the file to retain the original definition, and make this a command with a different name.
Kent Cooper, AIA
@DanSingleton wrote:
That'll work perfectly. 🙂 Thanks!
Thank you for triggering the idea. It's not a difficult concept, and if I used PasteBlock more than I do, I might have thought of it sooner. [Maybe there's a similar redefinition already out there somewhere, because you'd think someone must have thought of it.] But I like the idea well enough, even if I probably won't use it very much, that I've already put it into my acaddoc.lsp file.
Kent Cooper, AIA
@Kent1Cooper wrote:
@hmsilva wrote:
A way that occurs to me is "UNDEFINE" command...
....
And let's not stop there -- let's define a new PasteBlock command!
...
Nicely done!
Henrique
@hmsilva wrote:
....Nicely done!
....
Thank you, but use the attached updated version instead. It asks again if you give it a Block name that's already in use [otherwise, the Rename would fail, and the wacky name would remain]. And it does the Renaming differently, so it doesn't need to deal with the CMDECHO System Variable at all.
Kent Cooper, AIA
@Jason.Piercey wrote:
I've not studied the posted code, but what is preventing the user from simply entering a bunch of gibberish when prompted for a name? I suspect if this user is as lazy as you say, that is exactly what will happen. Just because user input is required, doesn't make it meaningful.
You don't need to study it -- nothing prevents that. I can't imagine a way to check what they enter for gibberishiosity, but it can't be any worse than AutoCAD's wacky names. And if they need to put something in, it's in their own best self-interest [whether they realize it or not] to make it mean at least something, so they can Insert the same Block again, knowing which one it is in a list of Block names. After all, if they're not going to use it as a Block more than once, then there's no point in using PasteBlock rather than just Paste -- it uses more memory to have a defined Block that's Inserted only once than not to have it defined as a Block at all. But a knowledgeable-enough User can get around whatever you set up, including the "nuclear" option of simply undefining the PasteBlock command, which would also greatly and unnecessarily inconvenience less-knowledgeable Users.
Kent Cooper, AIA
@rkmcswain wrote:
If I'm your "stubborn user", I just start using ".pasteblock" or maybe I have my own function (defun c: pb () (vl-cmdf ".pasteblock")).......
I'm being facetious obviously, but it is possible if "stubborn user" knows a little bit about lisp.
Well if I was that stubborn user, my approach would be (command "_.redefine" "PASTEBLOCK"). Then I could use Ctrl+Shift+V again instead of needing a command name. Also facetious, but they're all part of what I meant by a knowledgeable-enough User. Another thought -- maybe a Reactor could be made that would watch for something like that, and change it back, or watch for that command name and always return to the require-a-Block-name version, but I haven't worked with Reactors, and don't know enough about what they're capable of doing. In any case, I suppose a knowledgeable-enough User could also get around one of those.
Kent Cooper, AIA
![Autodesk Design & Make Report](https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/1350519iCB55845EBFC43016/image-size/large?v=v2&px=999" "Autodesk Design & Make Report")
