Perhaps I am overlooking the simple. But, when I script a series of events
that are to be done on each of the images in a directory, I dont see a way
to deal with the halt on each and every file, that I get when I run the
script in FILE/BATCH mode. It seems to want to halt with each EXPORT file
save to ask me to verify the file over-write. That is a normal process, so
it doesnt disturb me that the request is there to verify a file over-write.
It does seem that it should be scriptable. It is an undesireable taks to
manually key respond to, in this particular case, 87 requests to verify file
overwrites when the decision to do those over-writes was already made once
and applies to ALL files.

Is there a checkbox or some way to record the file over-write ok?

news.frontiernet.net wrote:
> Perhaps I am overlooking the simple. But, when I script a series
> of events that are to be done on each of the images in a
> directory, I dont see a way to deal with the halt on each and
> every file, that I get when I run the script in FILE/BATCH mode.

Your script is fighting with the way the batch processor is intended
to work. Write the script to process just one image. Leave out
everything about opening and closing files. When that script runs in
the batch processor, the BP does the file opening and saving part.

Do set up the BP to save the changed files with new names, in a
different folder, or whatever suits to avoid over-writing the
originals.
-- 
Fred Hiltz,  fhiltz at yahoo dot com

Why cannot one set it up ot automatically over-write the old image. This is
the usual pattern when working manually. It is logical for automation to
follow the accepted manual process.

So, setting a check mark somewhere to automatically over-write the original,
would be a time saver, rather than having to respond to zillions of
over-write request . . to which one routinely reponds "yes".

"Fred Hiltz" <not@home.ca> wrote in message
news:7dKdnf2cSseTznjdRVn-vA@adelphia.com...
> news.frontiernet.net wrote:
> > Perhaps I am overlooking the simple. But, when I script a series
> > of events that are to be done on each of the images in a
> > directory, I dont see a way to deal with the halt on each and
> > every file, that I get when I run the script in FILE/BATCH mode.
>
> Your script is fighting with the way the batch processor is intended
> to work. Write the script to process just one image. Leave out
> everything about opening and closing files. When that script runs in
> the batch processor, the BP does the file opening and saving part.
>
> Do set up the BP to save the changed files with new names, in a
> different folder, or whatever suits to avoid over-writing the
> originals.
> --
> Fred Hiltz,  fhiltz at yahoo dot com
>

Wasn't it news.frontiernet.net who wrote:
>Why cannot one set it up ot automatically over-write the old image. This is
>the usual pattern when working manually. It is logical for automation to
>follow the accepted manual process.

You previously said you were using EXPORT, not SAVE. 

EXPORT asks for confirmation in the manual process, even if the file
name happens to be the same, and in a script. The same happens with SAVE
and SAVE_AS.

SAVE doesn't ask for confirmation in the manual process or in a script. 

In each case, the automation follows the manual process.

-- 
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure

Wasn't it Mike Williams who wrote:
>Wasn't it news.frontiernet.net who wrote:
>>Why cannot one set it up ot automatically over-write the old image. This is
>>the usual pattern when working manually. It is logical for automation to
>>follow the accepted manual process.
>
>You previously said you were using EXPORT, not SAVE. 
>
>EXPORT asks for confirmation in the manual process, even if the file
>name happens to be the same, and in a script. The same happens with SAVE
>and SAVE_AS.

Sorry, that's a typo. I meant to say that the same happens with SAVE_AS
and SAVE_COPY_AS.

>SAVE doesn't ask for confirmation in the manual process or in a script. 
>
>In each case, the automation follows the manual process.

-- 
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure

news.frontiernet.net wrote:
> "Fred Hiltz" <not@home.ca> wrote in message
> news:7dKdnf2cSseTznjdRVn-vA@adelphia.com...
>> Do set up the BP to save the changed files with new names, in a
>> different folder, or whatever suits to avoid over-writing the
>> originals.
>> --
>> Fred Hiltz,  fhiltz at yahoo dot com
>
> Why cannot one set it up ot automatically over-write the old
> image. This is the usual pattern when working manually. It is
> logical for automation to follow the accepted manual process.
>
> So, setting a check mark somewhere to automatically over-write
> the original, would be a time saver, rather than having to
> respond to zillions of over-write request . . to which one
> routinely reponds "yes".

You certainly can set the batch processor to over-write the starting
file. I don't recommend it because losing the original is so often
cause for grief. Your choice, though.
-- 
Fred Hiltz,  fhiltz at yahoo dot com