Subject: Re: [ecasound] ecasound syntax
From: Jeremy Hall (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jul 16 2001 - 14:36:07 EEST
I vote for adding it to the -i and -o options, just like the hidden i or n
feature for interleaving to the -f option. In this way, you can override
the type but otherwise it will figure it out by extention. It would only
be if you wanted an unknown type extention or to change the behavior of
one, like if you wanted -i:file.wav,raw
It would also be good to finally rid of that wierd ambiguous message when
you give it a file extention it doesn't recognize, now it can tell you to
try the extra argument. I vote for adding to the -i or -o rather than the
-f since you technically aren't changing the format, only how the format
is stored on disk.
In the new year, toby wrote:
> On a Unix system, it may be, that file name extensions
> are used to a great degree in order to distinguish file
> types to the user, but the inverse ratio of *programs*
> actually use the extension to decide the type. They
> either use the first four bytes of the file, look at
> command line options, or just
> trust that the user gave the proper data type. In this
> sense, I don't think that examining a file extension (or
> any part of it's name) is 'ordinary' to Unix, although
> it has been chosen from time to time (gzip and others).
> I think that you have a fine point about the syntax
> however, and I would not want to change the usage of
> ecasound in a way that would affect people using it
> now. I agree that it should be some optional add on
> argument. Yeah, why not at the end of the -f bit?
> > I agree that being able to override the type as defined by the file
> > name is a feature that is needed; however it seems to me that the
> > ordinary way of selecting the filetype is what 99% of the people will
> > want 99% of the time. So it'd be a pity to clutter the -i/-o syntax
> > unless it's done in an unobstrusive way. Best ways seem to me to be:
> > - Make it an optional argument to -f like in -f:bits_end,ch,sr[,type]
> > - Make it an optional argument to -i/-o (after the actual file/pipe
> > name) as in -i:stdin,wave
> > Makes any sense?
> > --
> > To unsubscribe send message 'unsubscribe' in the body of the
> > message to <firstname.lastname@example.org>.
> To unsubscribe send message 'unsubscribe' in the body of the
> message to <email@example.com>.
-- To unsubscribe send message 'unsubscribe' in the body of the message to <firstname.lastname@example.org>.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Jul 16 2001 - 14:35:58 EEST