1>file (for ...
- Thread starter vefatica
- Start date
vefatica wrote:
First, it's meaningless because you're asking the parser to redirect
STDOUT to STDOUT and then on to FILE. Lose the "1".
The second problem is with the overall line syntax. Because you put the
redirection at the beginning of the line (undocumented behavior), the
parser has no way of knowing that you're (eventually) going to want to
run a FOR, so it does variable expansion on the whole line, causing the
%i arguments to be prematurely expanded. You either need to double up
the %'s or eliminate the command grouping and put the redirection at the
end of the line.
Rex Conn
JP Software
First, it's meaningless because you're asking the parser to redirect
STDOUT to STDOUT and then on to FILE. Lose the "1".
The second problem is with the overall line syntax. Because you put the
redirection at the beginning of the line (undocumented behavior), the
parser has no way of knowing that you're (eventually) going to want to
run a FOR, so it does variable expansion on the whole line, causing the
%i arguments to be prematurely expanded. You either need to double up
the %'s or eliminate the command grouping and put the redirection at the
end of the line.
Rex Conn
JP Software
Boy, talk about cryptic syntax! Do you have a need for that syntax? Why
can't you use the more readable:
(for /L %i in (0,1,2) do echo %i)>file
-Scott
vefatica <>
06/04/2008 02:38 PM
Please respond to
To
[email protected]
cc
Subject
RE: [Support-t-121] 1>file (for ...
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:16:13 -0500, you wrote:
Quote:
do?
How is it meaningless? It works (TCC):
v:\> 1>file (date /t)
v:\> type file
Wed 2008-06-04
--
- Vince
can't you use the more readable:
(for /L %i in (0,1,2) do echo %i)>file
-Scott
vefatica <>
06/04/2008 02:38 PM
Please respond to
To
[email protected]
cc
Subject
RE: [Support-t-121] 1>file (for ...
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:16:13 -0500, you wrote:
Quote:
do?
How is it meaningless? It works (TCC):
v:\> 1>file (date /t)
v:\> type file
Wed 2008-06-04
--
- Vince
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:59:22 -0500, you wrote:
I don't find it cryptic or any less readable but I'm not lobbying for it either.
I was just curious. I actually wanted to do "> NUL", but was at the beginning
of the line. The construction (which I've known for a long time and which often
works) popped into my head.
1>nul for ...
It didn't work (didn't work in CMD either). When I threw in the parens,
1>nul (for ...
It did work in CMD but not in TCC. So I thought I'd ask about it. I am not
asking that any behavior be changed.
--
- Vince
I don't find it cryptic or any less readable but I'm not lobbying for it either.
I was just curious. I actually wanted to do "> NUL", but was at the beginning
of the line. The construction (which I've known for a long time and which often
works) popped into my head.
1>nul for ...
It didn't work (didn't work in CMD either). When I threw in the parens,
1>nul (for ...
It did work in CMD but not in TCC. So I thought I'd ask about it. I am not
asking that any behavior be changed.
--
- Vince