On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 12:14:38 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Aaron P Ingebrigtsen (Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 04:53:10PM -0700):
> > If I go do dos and type "start" it will say that it cannot find
> the file
> > or command. So what are you talking about?
>
> strange... i can remember the old freenet-batches (finsert.bat
> frequest.bat)
> used start.
>
> start [options] programm [parameters for programm]
Well in DOS there is no need for a START command of any kind in order to
start an executable file. DOS automaticaly recognizes all command and
executable files by file name and extension and searches it's PATH and
current directory for any executable or command file that matches the
name you type at the CLI.
So instead of typeing "START dir /p" you just type "dir /p" and you will
get a directory listing with paused output every screenfull.
There is no "start" command in DOS or Windows that I have ever seen.
> and there's AFAIK a option that makes start execute the programm in
> background.
>
> but then, i have no WIN and can't check, thus.
Well that would be nice, if I had such a command or executable. :) But
then, DOS can only have ONE TSR program at a time I think. And Windows
can start any number of programs in their individual windows. :)
>
> > > can't you use a for-loop????
> > I don't want to use it anymore. Why? Because I have multiple
> version of
> > files and I only want to upload the most recent versions, not an
> entire
> > directory structure off of my hard drive.
>
> well, then it seems like you have to maintain such huge batches...
Yes, but I don't have any other choice at the moment.
>
> > > e:
> > > cd \private\freenet\website
> > > for %f in ( *.* *\*.* ... ) do finsert
> > SSK@bar/Krepta's_Freenet_Web_Site/%f %f
> >
> > Actualy the correct command in the batch would have %%f instead of
> just
> > %f, and it would insert under the key without recreating the
> directory
> > structure, AND it would insert with the all CAPS DOS 8.3 names of
> the
> > files, not the lowercase win95 longnames that they should be. And
> the
> > ... shouldn't be there, it will just make such a mess at the end
> of the
> > thing.
>
> "..." should mean "and so on"
Well DOS batch syntax doesn't look at it that way, it just looks at it as
a text variable input, which then gets passed to the command as "rem
...". If the command had been finsert it would have tried to insert "...
..." as a key AND file, which would not have worked.
>
> > I tried this sinple test command at the command prompt:
> >
> > for %f in ( *.* *\*.* ... ) do rem %f
> >
> > And the output was this:
> >
> > E:\PRIVATE>rem MODEM.TXT MODEM.TXT
>
> strange DOS behaviuor.... actually *.* should include each file in
> this directory,
> *\*.* all the files in all subdirectories.... don't ask me why this
> doesn't work.
Yes, as far as I can tell, it does not recurse the directories. DARN
IT!!! It lists the files in the current directory in DOS 8.3 uppercase
format. GRR!! It could be an easy replacement for the DIR command, but
DIR is far better. :)
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
_______________________________________________
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
