Re: Moving large PDF files with Applescript
Re: Moving large PDF files with Applescript
- Subject: Re: Moving large PDF files with Applescript
- From: "John C. Welch" <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:01:34 -0400
- Thread-topic: Moving large PDF files with Applescript
On 4/1/09 3:53 PM, "Mark J. Reed" <email@hidden> wrote:
>> Since we're moving the file at the conclusion, and changing the name of a
>> file is pretty easy, the answer is obvious. Prepend the bytecount of the
>> file onto the name of the file.
>
> Wonderful suggestion. Eminently workable. I don't know that I'd go
> so far as "obvious", but even if it is, it was by no means implicit in
> any previous discussion. We could have avoided a lot of irritation if
> you'd just proposed it in answer to our objections, rather than
> pretending that we had nothing to object to in the first place because
> this solution was right there in front of us.
Because I try to not get that specific. If people copy my solution, they
never come up with possibly a better one on their own, or one that might
work better for their own needs. Often, just letting people know a thing IS
possible creates better solutions than anything I'll ever come up with.
>
> I still dislike solutions that are based on polling rather than an
> event trigger, as a matter of principle and efficiency. But certainly,
> having an explicit size to check against makes the delay loop approach
> much more robust than just waiting for the size to stop changing for
> some small time period.
Yep, and it provides a small measure of "what you think you got is what you
actually got."
>
>> That's your takeaway from it, and it seems to be based on your assumption
>> that the delay loop can't be implemented in a usable fashion. Not my fault
>> that's not correct.
>
> I never said it wasn't "usable". I said it wasn't, in the general
> case, "reliable". That's not the same thing at all. Obviously you
> and Yvan and others have used such solutions successfully; it would be
> foolish to claim that they aren't usable. But anecdotal success is
> not the same thing as robust design.
If it's not reliable, why would you use it. As well, "robust design",
especially when it comes to things like this, are situation-dependent. If I
know my network is highly reliable, and I know what transfer methods are
going to be used, then I can create something that is robust in my situation
that would fall apart in a different situation. Robust is not the same as
ironclad here.
>
> Regardless, my critique wasn't intended as an attack on you, so I
> don't know why you got all huffy and condescending. Maybe you're the
> one taking this mailing list stuff too personally?
For you to attack me would require me to take someone I don't know
seriously. That's not going to happen. However, you started getting' all
sorts of huffy because I wasn't spelling things out at the level you
desired, and kept insisting that it wasn't in fact easy.
Sometimes, the rest of the world doesn't have to prove anything to you.
--
Q: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he
doesn't know about it until the next morning?
A: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
AppleScript-Users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
Archives: http://lists.apple.com/archives/applescript-users
This email sent to email@hidden