 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> ah, the guy who enjoys a programming language comprised of obfuscated symbols in
> confusing point-free style
I disagree.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 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.
You've clearly never used Perl?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
>
> You've clearly never used Perl?
It's something I try to avoid, yes.
(I sat down with a book one day and wrote a Perl CGI script. A week
later, I couldn't figure out how in the name of God it actually works...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
