Jeremy Nicoll - ml sox users <jn.ml.sxu.88@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 2016-09-21 15:21, Måns Rullgård wrote: >> Jan Stary <hans@xxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> And even that is not a reason to have the libmagic functionality >>> in_SoX_itself. Find out what the format is (possibly with file(1)), >>> and then run sox on it with the appropriate --type. >> >> That's your opinion. I don't see anyone agreeing with you. > > Yoo-hoo! I'm over here, waving. > > Sox is a command-line utility, and one of the powers of a well-designed > set of CLI utilities (some would say, of a set of Unix or Linux CLI > utilities) is that each one does one tightly-defined thing as well as it > can, and lets other tools do other stuff. Do you think sox should be split up so each format handler and filter becomes a separate program? > I suppose one's point of view might depend on how fluent one is with > scripting languages; I'm perfectly happy to write (quite complex) > scripts which call sox, and use any number of appropriate other tools > to determine what the sox command should be. But, I programmed > computers for a living. > > I do accept that those without such fluency would have a different > point of view, but ... not all that many people who hate the CLI are > going to be using sox without some sort of front-end. I don't mind writing shell scripts either. That's beside the point. The built-in detection works on non-seekable streams. There is no way to do that using file(1) in a shell script. -- Måns Rullgård ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Sox-users mailing list Sox-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users
