Requested Need to correct command line useage

[BobK]

I reported what seemed to be a bug in the other fora..
to wit:
>i_view /thumbs ---- Works
>i_view c:\ /thumbs ---- Works
>i_view c:\*.jpg /thumbs ---- Fails, no error msg, no nothing..

That there's no error msg, remains as a bug.

SkippyBox says: You should use these options for such functionality:
Code: > i_view32.exe c:\ /thumbs /filepattern="*.jpg"

That is quite non-intuitive. If file patterns are accepted, then they
should be accepted as I attempted to use it above.

Ahother user says: Wildcards (*) supported only for /convert, /print, /info and /jpg_rotate. (c). IrfanView Help

Well, there's the design spec that says they're acceptable! ..

BTW: if that feature existed, I can eliminate my old classic ACDSEE that I can't live without.

Bob K.
P.S. This is NOT a complaint, just a genuine request to make IrfanView even better than the fantastically great tool I use several times a day! ..

[Skippybox]

That there's no error msg, remains as a bug.

Many IV command line errors do not result in messages. I agree, that is bad, considering you could use the /silent switch to block any.

That is quite non-intuitive. If file patterns are accepted, then they should be accepted as I attempted to use it above.

It may be non-intuitive, but now you know the design syntax as specified in Help. So, what diffculty does it cause you? Does it take longer, cause a user error, or will you forget it? These are valid concerns. I would support it, if it meant it wouldn't take anything away from the current functionality.

BTW: if that feature existed, I can eliminate my old classic ACDSEE that I can't live without.

Why? Classic ACDSee is cool!

[BobK]

Are you one of the programmers? Do you have some stake in defending IrfanView?
I'm simply pointing out that it is not acceptable for a program to 'refuse' to do anything. Either it works, or gives an error message. If it doesn't, it's a bug.

And Classic ACDSee may be cool, but it can easily be replaced by IV. And have you looked at the latest ACDSee? A bloated clumsy over-functioned mess.

[Skippybox]

Are you one of the programmers? Do you have some stake in defending IrfanView?

No, Irfan is the only programmer. Why wouldn't I have a stake? We are all users of the program, and what happens to it, affects us all. I'm not trying to argue, just show you another perspective.

Another user already reported that there was a change between 4.20 and 4.23, in what directory a conversion happens in when using just wildcards, without specifying a directory. So, when something worked before and now it doesn't work the same, people get annoyed.

I'm simply pointing out that it is not acceptable for a program to 'refuse' to do anything. Either it works, or gives an error message. If it doesn't, it's a bug.

Obviously, wildcards are used as you describe, but only supported for certain switches. Clearly, there must be a reason for this, if it is documented. If it is intended design, I don't see how it is automatically a bug. See When is a Bug not a Bug. Who says software has to be acceptable anyway? Why are you defending acceptableness?

And Classic ACDSee may be cool, but it can easily be replaced by IV. And have you looked at the latest ACDSee? A bloated clumsy over-functioned mess.

I don't see how. IrfanView does not do everything, and never will. A collection of programs will always be necessary, to obtain different functionality. The current ACDSee may be bloated, but so is Photoshop. How many people will stop using that? Lean software doesn't always perform better either.