XYplorer Beta Club

Just a thought, which demonstrates how utterly lazy I am. Here's the situation:

(1) I download a media file that contains two separate RAR parts (A & B, for example);
(2) UnRAR the files, leaving me with two AVI files. I select one of them, and then
(3) I hit CTRL+ALT+M to select both AVI files, then
(4) I hit CTRL+SHIFT+I to invert the selection and delete everything but the AVI files.

Would it be possible to combine these two operations into one keyboard shortcut? That is, to select one of the AVI files, hit a keyboard shortcut (CTRL+SHIFT+M), allowing me to delete them in one operation.

That's quite analog to the new "Filter Out Selected Extension(s)".

It also reminds me to "Crop" in imaging software, where everything apart from the selection is deleted. So what about a new function "Crop" which would delete all non-selected items?

admin wrote:So what about a new function "Crop" which would delete all non-selected items?

Absolutely!

And not just in imaging ; in Winamp playlists, for example, this is called "crop selected". You select what you want to keep, hit crop and all else is deleted.

what about a new function "Crop" which would delete all non-selected items?

Sure, as long as it selected all similarly-selected file types and deleted everything else. In other words, in my original example, as long as I've selected the file type I want to keep, I'm looking for one keyboard shortcut to do the work of both (1) Select by Selected file types, and (2) Invert Selection, but then go one step further and (3) delete all the non-selected file types within the folder.

Using the familiar 'crop' term is a helpful illustration of the function. The new "Filter Out Selected Extension(s)" option is REALLY cool, and really convenient.

zridling wrote:...I'm looking for one keyboard shortcut to do the work of both (1) Select by Selected file types, and (2) Invert Selection, but then go one step further and (3) delete all the non-selected file types within the folder.

That indeed sounds a bit crazy. But it is a good example for the usefulness of scripting.

I wonder if I should expose the XY function IDs... (since CKS each XY function has a unique unchangeable ID), and then give you a hardcore form of scripting that could look for example like this: "do 412, 67, 387", this could stand for:
(1) Select by Selected file types
(2) Invert Selection
(3) Delete

A bit hardcore to look up the correct numbers but incredibly powerful... I could expose the function IDs within the CKS interface. Hmm....

Yea, doing multiple operations like that requires scripting no matter what. And hey, scripting makes the world go round, right? (Nod to AutoHotkey)

If you do decide to expose the XY function IDs, that would be cool. But I should add — of course — that this is not a priority request. Just something I thought of, since I'm doing this same keyboard combo dozens of times a day with various converted database files on top of media files.

As long as the FID's will never change, I don't see the harm...
A table grouped in some organized manner wouldn't be that bad as a way to locate desired FID manually.

And then some day in the future...ability to record these as a macro and then edit the resulting script as one does in Excel, etc...

admin wrote:I wonder if I should expose the XY function IDs... (since CKS each XY function has a unique unchangeable ID), and then give you a hardcore form of scripting that could look for example like this: "do 412, 67, 387"

I wonder what you mean here... as a special treatment for us, before scripting comes in, or for when scripting will be there??
If the later, I don't think this is a good idea. Not every user of XY is a power-user, and even for them this isn't the best way to go IMO. Can't you just create some "aliases", so instead of using 412 people would use select_by_file_types which would, internally, be "converted" to 412 or whatever you wish it to be.

Of course, if you mean as a way to get scripting (or scripting-like) sooner to XY, I'm all in. But only because I think it will be an awesome & extremelly powerful feature, so I'm ready to use numbers or whatever it takes to get it done!

jacky wrote:

admin wrote:I wonder if I should expose the XY function IDs... (since CKS each XY function has a unique unchangeable ID), and then give you a hardcore form of scripting that could look for example like this: "do 412, 67, 387"

I wonder what you mean here... as a special treatment for us, before scripting comes in, or for when scripting will be there??
If the later, I don't think this is a good idea. Not every user of XY is a power-user, and even for them this isn't the best way to go IMO. Can't you just create some "aliases", so instead of using 412 people would use select_by_file_types which would, internally, be "converted" to 412 or whatever you wish it to be.

Of course, if you mean as a way to get scripting (or scripting-like) sooner to XY, I'm all in. But only because I think it will be an awesome & extremelly powerful feature, so I'm ready to use numbers or whatever it takes to get it done!

Totally agreed! I was just thinking wildly... aliases is okay, recording actions would be even okayer... but for now enjoying the summer is okayest!

I agree. Take some time and re-energize. There's been so much progress on XYplorer over the last year that it's a good time to review the beta logs and program history just to make sure I'm not missing anything.

Love this idea

BTW Don, yuo should come to the UK, it's been raining for the whole of June - you'd be on version 7 of XY by now

lukescammell wrote:Love this idea

Which idea?

zridling wrote:I agree. Take some time and re-energize. There's been so much progress on XYplorer over the last year that it's a good time to review the beta logs and program history just to make sure I'm not missing anything.

I'd like to add this crazy thing, if only 'cause you are my all-time-top-donater. (Yeah, folks, donating can be good for you, too ) What about "Delete all other types" as caption for a "miscellaneous" command?

admin wrote:I wonder if I should expose the XY function IDs... (since CKS each XY function has a unique unchangeable ID), and then give you a hardcore form of scripting that could look for example like this: "do 412, 67, 387"

This - I love this idea

lukescammell wrote:

admin wrote:I wonder if I should expose the XY function IDs... (since CKS each XY function has a unique unchangeable ID), and then give you a hardcore form of scripting that could look for example like this: "do 412, 67, 387"

This - I love this idea

Yeah, it's so computerish. Feels like programming the Zuse Z1. Users as masters of a secret and mysterious art, not stupid GUI surfers. The return of the nimbus. Let's stop shaving and do crazy things with obscure numbers! ... ... I love it but it might be economical suicide...