Reading stdin...

[vefatica]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 19:19:11 -0400, rconn <> wrote:

|It's 30-year-old MS-DOS syntax. Microsoft eliminated ^Z as EOF when they released Windows 95.

CMD.EXE's TYPE (in its XPSP3 incarnation) sees ^Z as EOF.

 

[vefatica]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 19:45:21 -0400, rconn <> wrote:

|I don't think you picked a great example to make your case. Why not:
|
|copy logfile+con:

I never learned that use of "+".

And I see that respects ^Z as EOF and actually puts it into the file whether or
not you actually typed it (i.e., ^Z goes into the file even if you terminate
entry with ^C).

 

[jmcm]

On 30/04/2011 9:19 AM, rconn wrote:

> ---Quote (Originally by mathewsdw)---
> Rex, I don't any longer know exactly why, I just do know that I have, for a very long time, habitually and without thinking about it, used ^Z to indicate "end of file" in whatever circumstances that made sense.
> ---End Quote---
>
> It's 30-year-old MS-DOS syntax. Microsoft eliminated ^Z as EOF when they released Windows 95.
>

I think it is older than that, it was used in CP/M and may have been
derived from DEC PDP systems.

--
Regards
John McMahon
[email protected]

 

[David Marcus]

(And, please forgive me, but I find avoiding the use of "bold text" to be extremely difficult, as in even this very sentence!!!)

I suppose you could use the old text methods: _wow_, *hurray*. Or, maybe italics. You don't see a lot of bold in the text in books, do you?

Regarding ^Z:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2004/03/16/90448.aspx

 

[mathewsdw]

I suppose you could use the old text methods: _wow_, *hurray*. Or, maybe italics. You don't see a lot of bold in the text in books, do you?

Actually, I think a lot of text books would actually be improved (and, boy, I really want to use "bold" on the previous word!!!) if they used "bold" to emphasize the major points that they are trying to present. (I would put a "happy face" here, but this web software doesn't seem to have that capability anymore....)

Regarding ^Z:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2004/03/16/90448.aspx

Well, I can now see what that URL is because it's fully visible in the this website's "editor" software, but on the actual page itself (as you can see directly above) it is presented as "http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/.../16/90448.aspx", although actually clicking on it (which I had not tried) does take you to the proper place (in a new browser tab, no less!). I learned something new!

 

[David Marcus]

but on the actual page itself (as you can see directly above) it is presented as "http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/.../16/90448.aspx"

The forum seems to do that on its own. I just pasted the URL into the edit box on the page.

 

[Steve Pitts]

It's 30-year-old MS-DOS syntax. Microsoft eliminated ^Z as EOF when they released Windows 95

It seems that someone else must disagree with that:

Table of keyboard shortcuts on Wikipedia