First of all thanks to
@Matrix10 for his extra effort.
What I'd like to underline is that this was not intended just and only to have a skin adjusted but to open a discussion about the opportunity to find a smart way to get over the bounds of the code.
I examined both the solution proposed by MX and Thomas. They differ for the fact of taking automatically into account how many lines are in the MessageBox or keeping the default of visible lines at the number of two.
The results are in the corresponded screengrabs attached (the first 3 from MX solution, the second three from the Thomas solution, as of their filenames).
I'm not into the skin coding field but, if I interpret correctly what Thomas did (you tell me, Thomas, if I'm wrong), this line of code
count = len(self.list)
is meant to adapt to the situation. So if we have two options, two lines wioll be shown; otherwise we'll have 3 or 4 (or probably more: I haven't found more than 4 options so far!).
However it was got, the result is modular.
But, again, the real problem is: is it a great deal to introduce similar piece of codes in every skins from now on just to "win" over the coders who, as MX said, don't care about skins and skin coders?
Because, it must be said, if coders don't show consideration for skins, they actually show no consideration for us users.
Skins, either the nice ones or the ugly ones, are
the only way a user has got to interact with a code, and together they create a real software; otherwise we should do everything from the command line, as it was in CP/M, then in DOS and then in the first Linux releases, for
everything.
GUIs and skins are a fundamental part of a software: we users cannot be all programmers and the success of an image, I believe, much depends also on them, not also on "pure" code.