 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>
> Sort by type, select the range of png files, and delete them.
> Alternately, type "*.png" into the search bar, ctrl-A, delete.
And if PNG:s are defined just as "Image" and there's another image types
defined the same (eg. .JPG), you'll practically remove them also.
> Not quite as intuitive as del *.png, I'll grant, but potentially quicker
> than opening a command window and navigating to the directory manually. :-)
That's one reason to tweak "Open command prompt here" to the right-click
menu ;-).
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> If you have ever done any windows scripting it should be a piece of cake,
>
> That seems to be a problem with Windows: It simply doesn't invite you
> to do things by scripting.
Why not, it's really easy, on a fresh OS install you can open notepad,
script away in a DOS-like language, VBscript or JavaScript, save the file
and run it. If you need help, google will give you millions of examples and
tutorial on how to do stuff, the MS website even has a whole area for it.
> I have been a regular Windows user for over 10 years, yet I don't have
> the slightest idea about vbscripts nor even how you could even run them.
> Can you run them directly? Do you need some kind of interpreter for it?
> Does Windows support them by default, or do you need to install something?
> I really don't have the slightest idea. I don't even know where to start.
>
> I have also been a regular Unix user for over 10 years, and I'm somewhat
> fluent in shell scripting. I'm in fact so used to it, that I find a
> terminal
> emulator much more comfortable for browsing and handling files than a
> graphical file browser (even though all linux distros have both).
>
> I can't say which system I have used more overall, but I think it's
> rather telling that in one system I'm pretty fluent with its scripting,
> while in the other I don't have the faintest idea where to even start
> looking. There is just some fundamental difference in these two systems
> which causes different natural way of thinking.
The key question is, why didn't you learn to script for windows? Is it
because you didn't need to, didn't want to, or weren't able to? What are
the scripts doing that you have written for Unix? Why aren't they needed on
Windows?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Not quite as intuitive as del *.png, I'll grant, but potentially quicker
>> than opening a command window and navigating to the directory manually. :-)
>
> That's one reason to tweak "Open command prompt here" to the right-click
> menu ;-).
Opening a command prompt and navigating it to the same place as the
Explorer window you already have open *is* frustratingly tedious. Some
day I'll have to find a way around that...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Does that work recursively?
>
> Pass /R and it will.
Will %I contain the complete pathname? Or just relative from the CWD?
Actually, what the hell, there's a simple way to find out...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Opening a command prompt and navigating it to the same place as the
> Explorer window you already have open *is* frustratingly tedious. Some
> day I'll have to find a way around that...
It's called "open command prompt here". :-) Google it.
Built into vista - hold the shift key when you right-click the folder icon.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> Does that work recursively?
>>
>> Pass /R and it will.
>
> Will %I contain the complete pathname? Or just relative from the CWD?
>
> Actually, what the hell, there's a simple way to find out...
Yes.
for /?
Like we said... There's literally 5 screens of options.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Will %I contain the complete pathname? Or just relative from the CWD?
>>
>> Actually, what the hell, there's a simple way to find out...
>
> Yes.
>
> for /?
I was thinking more along the lines of
FOR /R %f IN (*) DO echo %f
actually. :-P
> Like we said... There's literally 5 screens of options.
...and no way of reading it easily. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> Will %I contain the complete pathname? Or just relative from the CWD?
>>>
>>> Actually, what the hell, there's a simple way to find out...
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> for /?
>
> I was thinking more along the lines of
>
> FOR /R %f IN (*) DO echo %f
Yes. But the right answer is "both, depending on what options you give."
>> Like we said... There's literally 5 screens of options.
> ...and no way of reading it easily. :-P
Uh, why not? I assume you're literate, you have a Windows machine, and a
keyboard and screen, or you wouldn't be asking about it.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I was thinking more along the lines of
>>
>> FOR /R %f IN (*) DO echo %f
>
> Yes. But the right answer is "both, depending on what options you give."
Probably, yes. (I already figured out - for another problem - that %~nf
strips the file extension.) Personally, I'm not fond of all these funky
abbriviations. I'd refer something like %{drop suffix %f} or something.
>>> Like we said... There's literally 5 screens of options.
>> ...and no way of reading it easily. :-P
>
> Uh, why not? I assume you're literate, you have a Windows machine, and
> a keyboard and screen, or you wouldn't be asking about it.
Have you tried using the Windows pager? It's horrid. :-S
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> >> I was thinking more along the lines of
> >>
> >> FOR /R %f IN (*) DO echo %f
> >
> > Yes. But the right answer is "both, depending on what options you give."
>
> Probably, yes. (I already figured out - for another problem - that %~nf
> strips the file extension.) Personally, I'm not fond of all these funky
> abbriviations. I'd refer something like %{drop suffix %f} or something.
ah, the guy who enjoys a programming language comprised of obfuscated symbols in
confusing point-free style wish what is supposed to be concise scripting
languages to be comprised of verbose commands. Makes plenty of sense. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
