Re: Interpretation of extensions different from Unix/Linux?
- From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:41:01 +0200
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 19:49:10 +0000 (UTC), tmoran@xxxxxxx wrote:
I have an application that builds mp3 playlists. I specify the
root directory of the mp3 file tree on the command line, the Ada code
searches within that directory for mp3 files to add to a playlist.
I said "typically". A command-line application for maintenance of
playlists, which does not support file browsing by is by no means typical.
"Unusual" for one person is "typical" for another.
I have an Ada system that runs a TV station. There are lots of places
where the user uses a GUI to indicate a show, and the program needs to
scan a directory to find its episodes, or he indicates a show episode
and the system needs to build a playlist by scanning a directory to find
the video files, or the user loads a DVD and the system needs to scan
its directory to find the video files. The user sees "show", "episode",
"DVD" as his abstractions - he doesn't see directories or files.
And there is no way to specify the directory where files to be stored? It
is impossible to add such directories? It cannot play anything from
mountable drives?
OK, I give up. All these file-manager programs seem useless and untypical.
No need to write them in Ada.
--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: Interpretation of extensions different from Unix/Linux?
- From: Dmitry A. Kazakov
- Re: Interpretation of extensions different from Unix/Linux?
- From: tmoran
- Re: Interpretation of extensions different from Unix/Linux?
- Prev by Date: Re: Gem 39 - compiler specific?
- Next by Date: Re: Ada Shootout program for K-Nucleotide (patches)
- Previous by thread: Re: Interpretation of extensions different from Unix/Linux?
- Next by thread: Re: Interpretation of extensions different from Unix/Linux?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|