1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Minor HELP issues

Discussion in 'Support' started by Steve Fabian, Feb 21, 2009.

  1. Steve Fabian

    May 20, 2008
    Likes Received:
    Help file tcmd.chm of Feb. 20, 2009, topic "pdir.htm", last edited

    Output field code descriptions:

    f add to subcode n that it is the default when no subcodes are specified

    For the width specification, add the qualifier that it does not affect the z
    (size) field

    In the paragraph "If the first digit of i is 0, the filed will be padded
    with zeros instead of spaces." change "filed" to "field".

    In the paragraph describing the just added special separators, amplify it by
    stating that to allow report fields not to be separated or to be separated
    by a fixed string, insert an empty string or the separator string, delimited
    by double quotes, between the field specifications WITHOUT spaces between
    the field specifications and the string delimiters.

    Add the note " (normally suppressed)" for the /D, /K and /M options.

    Add a statement to /S option that the /S+m and /Sn options can be combined
    to display only directory entries at least m levels but not more than n
    levels below the current directory (if no search path is specified), or
    below the path specified.

    Add a statement to the /(...) option that if more than one is specified,
    there will be a single space character separating the corresponding report
  2. rconn

    rconn Administrator
    Staff Member

    May 14, 2008
    Likes Received:
    Steve Fábián wrote:

    ?? It already *does* say that n is the default.

    The width does affect the size field; it just can't reduce it below 15

    I believe the samples already show that. The amplification above
    confused me; I think it would be even more confusing to most users. If I
    didn't already know what it did, I never would have figured it out by
    reading that sentence! :-)

    That seems implied to me -- if the option says it shows something, then
    not specifying the option would obviously not show it.

    That also is implied -- I think it's leading down a slippery slope to
    when I have to start saying "You can use option B with option A. You
    can also use option C with option A, and D, and E, and also A, B, and C
    together, and B, C, and D, and also A, B, C, and D, ..."

    I prefer to stick to specifying when things do *not* work together; it's
    a much smaller set.

    Rex Conn
    JP Software

Share This Page