This really isn't the right forum for this discussion, but I can't really think of the right forum, so I'll let it stay for a few more hours. But please, wrap it up. We only want meaningless stuff here
A good question is never answered. It is not a bolt to be tightened into place but a seed to be planted and to bear more seed toward the hope of greening the landscape of the idea. John Ciardi
Joined: Aug 21, 2004
I don't like to install anything instead of the batch file. Neither AWK nor anything else like Perl etc. It's all overhead.
When DOS Batch scripting is there why not using it? Ryan did a great job for me and I am very thankful to him.
Joined: Feb 18, 2005
Originally posted by Darya Akbari: Thanks Ryan,
it's near perfect. Only the & character does not translate. In case you have a quick solution I'm very interested. Anyway you already did a great job for me thanks.
What & are you talking about? There aren't any in the .BAT files. If you mean that there is an & in one of the file names, how did you get that? [ July 18, 2005: Message edited by: Ryan McGuire ]
Originally posted by Darya Akbari: When DOS Batch scripting is there why not using it?
By the time you have authored some DOS scripts yourself, you will know the answer to that question. Ryan did all the work for you, did you even try to understand the scripts? These forums are intended to help people solve their problems and learn in the process. I would strongly suggest you try to understand Ryan's code - while it does not use abstruse concepts, it is not trivial either.
Further, what he has authored for you is not a DOS script. It will not work in old DOS systems. It is an NT shell script. And both languages (if we can call them that) are chockfull with idiosyncracies and inconsistencies. It is a good tool for small tasks, but as Stan pointed out, it is best avoided if possible.