[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [h-e-w] pb with the use of Merge
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: [h-e-w] pb with the use of Merge |
Date: |
Sun, 06 May 2007 00:33:07 +0300 |
> Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 16:16:22 -0400
> From: Nat Goodspeed <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
>
> It's true that new versions of cmd are much more powerful than
> ever before. They've tried to adopt many semantic features of the
> Bourne shell and its many descendants. The trouble is that rather
> than borrowing syntax as well, they've invented some truly astonishing
> kludges.
I think they only look kludges because we are accustomed to the Bourne
shell syntax. Someone who is used to cmd will probably find the
Bourne shell semantics arcane and unintuitive.
> I have a small bash script, a helper used by other scripts, that
> searches for the base of my current Subversion work area. It writes
> the pathname to standard output. Typical usage in a bash script:
> cd "$(find-workarea)"
> I recently had to write a .bat script (don't ask) in which I
> wanted to use the same helper. Yes, it certainly is *possible*.
> Here's what I had to write:
> for /f "usebackq" %%w in (`bash find-workarea`) do cd %%w
I don't know what find-workarea does, but there probably are ways to
use the more advanced features of `for /f' for this job without
resorting to backticks, if you just dump the Bash script and do it
straight in cmd. The primary intent of `for /f' is to parse files,
so if find-workarea does anything like that, you shouldn't need to
resort to Bash.
The upshot of this is that, while cmd is not as powerful as Bash, its
latest versions go a long way towards that goal. And the new
PowerShell is even more powerful.
- [h-e-w] pb with the use of Merge, LaurentHelpEmacsWind, 2007/05/03
- Re: [h-e-w] pb with the use of Merge, Eli Zaretskii, 2007/05/04
- Re: [h-e-w] pb with the use of Merge, LaurentHelpEmacsWind, 2007/05/04
- Re: [h-e-w] pb with the use of Merge, LaurentHelpEmacsWind, 2007/05/04
- RE: [h-e-w] pb with the use of Merge, Phil Betts, 2007/05/04
- Re: [h-e-w] pb with the use of Merge, LaurentHelpEmacsWind, 2007/05/04
- RE: [h-e-w] pb with the use of Merge, Phil Betts, 2007/05/04
- Re: [h-e-w] pb with the use of Merge, Eli Zaretskii, 2007/05/04
- Re: [h-e-w] pb with the use of Merge, Nat Goodspeed, 2007/05/05
- Re: [h-e-w] pb with the use of Merge,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: [h-e-w] pb with the use of Merge, Nat Goodspeed, 2007/05/05
- RE: [h-e-w] pb with the use of Merge, Jeff Dwork, 2007/05/04
- Re: [h-e-w] pb with the use of Merge, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2007/05/04
- Re: [h-e-w] pb with the use of Merge, Robert A. Lerche, 2007/05/04
- Re: [h-e-w] pb with the use of Merge, Eli Zaretskii, 2007/05/04
- Re: [h-e-w] pb with the use of Merge, Eli Zaretskii, 2007/05/04
- Re: [h-e-w] pb with the use of Merge, LaurentHelpEmacsWind, 2007/05/12
- [h-e-w] EmacsW32; Older versions of EmacsW32 available?, Nelson E. Ingersoll, 2007/05/15
Re: [h-e-w] pb with the use of Merge, Stephen Leake, 2007/05/05