• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Finder Scripting
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Finder Scripting


  • Subject: Re: Finder Scripting
  • From: Dave Lyons <email@hidden>
  • Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 20:29:13 -0700

On Aug 20, 2005, at 5:17 AM, Shane Stanley wrote:
According to the dictionary, one command is "(NOT AVAILABLE) add to favorites". But now I try it, I see it doesn't actually compile like that. Then again, "add to favorites" alone won't compile either. (If I enter "«event fndrffav»" it compiles to "(NOT AVAILABLE) add to favorites" once, but from then on refuses to compile.)

I'll try to get this cleaned up for the next big release. If "add to favorites" has never even compiled right, then that one wasn't doing it's "compatibility" job anyway, and it can just be removed. Perhaps others can move into a separate "backwards compatibility" suite.


Moreover, we're not really talking about a script that "works on both Finder 9 and Finder X" -- the whole point is that these things _don't_ work under Finder X. Whatever, I'm not sure that there are many people still writing scripts for both. Brave souls.

I don't know how many people still try, but in some cases, their presence of this terminology allows a script to *compile* and then do a run-time check to see what things will work. If the script can't compile, it can't do the run-time check.


During Tiger development, when I first added what's now called "computer container", it was called "computer"...and in very short order I got a bug report that this broke the ability for a script to check whether it was running on 9 or X by doing something like computer "sysv" (where "computer" is the old Mac OS 9-compatible name for "system attribute"). Thus was born the non-conflicting name "computer container."


In Tiger, [...] you can move but not (always) duplicate. The problem doesn't happen always, but when it does you see an error dialog quickly flash up ("Sorry, the operation could not be completed because an unexpected error occurred, (Error code 0)"). The script editor's log records no error; in fact, the command returns what would be the result of correct operation. (This makes trapping it a nightmare.)

And the item has not actually been duplicated? (The return value refers to a nonexistent item?) -- Have anyone seen this happen with a "manual" Duplicate, or is it only from a script?


We have no bug reports of this, at least none assigned to Finder Scripting...if anyone who has seen this could file a bug, that will be helpful. Any report is better than none, but the more details, the better, especially in cases like this where it won't reproduce on demand. Has this been seen when duplicating: (1) a single item, or multiple items?, (2) documents, folders, packages?, (3) on HFS+ disks or network disks or something else?, (4) when the items have long names / short names / strange characters / valid extensions / unclaimed extensions?, (5) small items or huge items?, (6) 10.4, 10.4.1, 10.4.2?, ... and so on.

Most of those things will turn out to be irrelevant, but one of them might be crucial, and each specific case reported helps rule out variables.


The big thing missing is the recording of moving anything. Move a file, you get "select Finder window 1". Delete a file, you get "select Finder window 1". Duplicate a file, you get "select Finder window 1". You can do a whole lot of actions, and all you end up with is a series of "select Finder window 1/select Finder window 1/ select Finder window 1".

Specifics noted. -- All these operations just don't support recording yet, and each "select Finder window 1" comes from clicking in the window, which selects it as a side effect. And it probably shouldn't bother to record a select for the already-active window.


In truth, I see recordability as a much lower priority than having other stuff working. Recordability with such big gaps seems like effort that could have been better expended elsewhere (although realistically I assume it's a work-in-progress as time permits).

Agreed on the priority, and "as time permits" is exactly what it has been. The engineering time that has gone into recordability has been relatively small, and to some degree I tried to do a few of the "hard for the user to figure out" things first. For example, a user might easily get the syntax right for moving an item to another folder, but might be stumped trying to set a List view column's width, which records like this:


set width of column id creation date column of list view options of Finder window 1 to 223

On the whole, I agree that the more basic operations need to be recordable, too.

Cheers,

--Dave

_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Applescript-users mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden


  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: Finder Scripting
      • From: Shane Stanley <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Re: Finder Scripting (From: Shane Stanley <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Finder Scripting
  • Next by Date: Re: Finder Scripting
  • Previous by thread: Re: Finder Scripting
  • Next by thread: Re: Finder Scripting
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread