Documentation DO help inadequate

[Steve Fabian]

1/ The format of single-line DO is mixed in with the list of loop control formats, instead of a separate display
2/ Not documented (except by inference in the list of loop control formats) that DO count and DO FOREVER cannot be used as single-line DO.
3/ There is no hyperlink from the list of loop control formats to an explanation of /P format details, though there is one to the option switch /P explanation.

 

[rconn]

1/ The format of single-line DO is mixed in with the list of loop control formats, instead of a separate display
2/ Not documented (except by inference in the list of loop control formats) that DO count and DO FOREVER cannot be used as single-line DO.
3/ There is no hyperlink from the list of loop control formats to an explanation of /P format details, though there is one to the option switch /P explanation.

1) WAD - there isn't any difference in the syntax of the DO statement. The single-line DO is explained in the Usage section. (I don't think it's useful to duplicate every syntax statement, once without & once with the "(command)" string.)
2) Not true -- they both can be used as a single-line DO (but you wouldn't want to).
3) There isn't any hyperlink because there isn't anything else to explain in the context of the DO keywords.

I deleted the duplicate message you posted on this topic.

 

[Steve Fabian]

1) I meant that something like this "Single-line: DO loop_control (command)" to appear ABOVE the line Loop_control formats. This would eliminate the need to display the DO keyword before and [(command)] after loop control syntax, hopefully making them less confusing.

2) My apologies - there was a mistake in my test cases for single line DO count and DO FOREVER.