Re: UTI for Mach-O file
Re: UTI for Mach-O file
- Subject: Re: UTI for Mach-O file
- From: John Johnson <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:03:56 -0500
>> I guess that makes sense. But then why is there a com.apple.mach-o.binary and a public.unix-executable UTI in the first place??
>
> Well, technically, UTIs are not just applied to on-disk files. They can be applied to email attachments, where a MIME type might give that sort of information (although perhaps not for those specific UTIs). Also, pasteboard contents.
>
> But mostly, I'm guessing they exist as parent UTIs for other more-specific UTIs to declare conformance with.
>
> You can use the UTTypeCopyDeclaration and/or UTTypeCopyDeclaringBundleURL on those UTIs to investigate. Maybe the declaration includes some file extensions, for example. So, there might be real files that get assigned com.apple.mach-o.binary or public.unix-executable based on a file extension neither of us is thinking of right now. Of course, that doesn't help solve your problem, just maybe satisfy your curiosity. :)
Yes, it does satisfy my curiosity. Thanks for your knowledge and insight. I guess it would've just been oh-too-convenient if that little dock icon highlighted only for valid mach-o files and bundles... But it's just aesthetics; the program will function doing it like Kevin suggested.
John_______________________________________________
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden