By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
SignUp Now!>Looks like yet another silly CMD extension. Why not just write
>
>V:\> set /a x=1 & set /a y=2 & set /a z=x + y
Silly?>Looks like yet another silly CMD extension. Why not just write
>
>V:\> set /a x=1 & set /a y=2 & set /a z=x + y
>I highly doubt it makes any execution time difference. With a .bat file
>you have to load each line separately (interpreted), so you can run into
>performance issues when they are on separate lines. But we've got the
>'&' now, with everything all on one line, so that's not an issue.
> Is there any chance that you'd include this capability of CMD?
>
> v:\> set /a x=1,y=2,z=x + y
> 3
> v:\> echo %x% %y% %z%
> 1 2 3
>> Is there any chance that you'd include this capability of CMD?
>>
>> v:\> set /a x=1,y=2,z=x + y
>Why? (Unless you're trying to obfuscate your code, I don't see any
>reason for it.)
> Quote:
> >> Is there any chance that you'd include this capability of CMD?
> >>
> >> v:\> set /a x=1,y=2,z=x + y
>
> Quote:
> >Why? (Unless you're trying to obfuscate your code, I don't see any
> >reason for it.)
>
> It's perfectly clear to me. It's easier to write than the alternative
> and I'd
> bet it is (or could be) faster. Those are the reasons I ask for it.
>> >> Is there any chance that you'd include this capability of CMD?
>> >> v:\> set /a x=1,y=2,z=x + y
> This is undocumented behavior for CMD -- have you seen anybody using
> this in CMD code?
>This is undocumented behavior for CMD -- have you seen anybody using
>this in CMD code?
>It won't be any faster, and it certainly won't be any easier to read.