Why doesn't this work? v:\> 1>file (for /L %i in (0,1,2) do echo %i) Usage : FOR [/A:[[-][+] ... It works in CMD.EXE and with other TCC commands.
vefatica wrote: Your redirection syntax is meaningless - what are you actually trying to do? Rex Conn JP Software
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:16:13 -0500, you wrote: How is it meaningless? It works (TCC): v:\> 1>file (date /t) v:\> type file Wed 2008-06-04 -- - Vince
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
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 Samintz@ra.rockwell.com 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
