🚀 go-pugleaf

Andrue Cope wrote:

>On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 12:51:29 +0200, Tommy wrote:
>
> TBH this isn't very difficult
>but I wouldn't bother if you're only after "a few flashing lights and
>things to amuse the users".

Yes, it is rather easy, use....

CopyFileEx( pathF, newpathT, CopyProgressRoutine, pathF, &Canceled,
COPY_FILE_FAIL_IF_EXISTS );

>Actually predicting time to completion is tricky and the best you can do is
>keep revising your estimate. Even then you need to build in a delay or
>"aggregation factor" simply to produce reasonable values.

Once I've copied a couple files, (MB/sec is tricky when MB is small)
the rest copy in the desginated time (pretty close).  As you say, the
estimate is recalculated regularly.

> Microsoft dodn't
>appear to have bothered with this and that might be why the estimates it
>gives (using SHFileOperation AFAIK) have more comedy value than accuracy :)

Too true, plus the propensity to quit copying midway through a
directory, so you start over from the beginning, but there is no "No
To All" button, so you say "Yes To All" even though you really _don't_
want to overwrite stuff that was there before you started the copy the
first time.............................
Those are the reasons I wrote my own, and discovered the joys of 
CopyFileEx.