I really blew it this time.  

In my zeal to "set things straight" I produced typos in the second and 
third example commands.  They should have appeared as "format a:/u" and 
"format a:\u" respectively.

Furthermore, I mistakenly stated that DOS 7.0 will not accept 
"format a:/u" whereas I just proved to myself that it will.   However, 
DOS 6.22 will not.

In the future I pledge an extra measure of prudence and forbearance 
before clicking the "send" icon.  <hangs head in shame>

An appropriate quote vis-a-vis my impulsiveness would be:

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open 
one's mouth and remove all doubt."
        - A. Lincoln

Please forgive any errors in the above quotation.  I quoted from 
memory.  Furthermore, I apologize to the list for the wasted bandwidth.

Regards,

Glenn

On Monday 09 July 2001 11:00 am, you wrote:
> Hi, Mike:
>
> I respectfully disagree with you.  For as many years as I have been
> using MS-DOS or PC-DOS, syntax  has *required* a space between the
> command and any switch preceded by a forward slash.
>
> I just finished successfully formatting a floppy disk using this
> command:
>
>       format a: /u
>
> The command:
>
>       format/u
>
> produces the following: "Required parameter missing."
>
> and this variation:
>
>       format\u
>
> produces: "Bad command or filename"
>
> I also checked this out in one of the two DOS manuals I still have
> left.  I'll look in the other book as soon as I find it, but I have
> no reason to believe it will show anything different.
>
> Are you referring to some other flavor of DOS?  Perhaps I overlooked
> something in the original message.  If am am not talking about the
> same command or DOS or application as you, I apologize for butting
> in.
>
> Regards
>
> On Monday 09 July 2001 07:58 am, you wrote:
> > On Tuesday 10 July 2001 00:49, Glenn Williams wrote:
> > > Note that there needs to be a space between the 'unconditional'
> > > switch (u) and the format command, thus:
> > >
> > >           format /u a:
> >
> > Nope, Dos parses differently to (ba)sh, no whitespace is
> > acceptable.

-- 
Glenn Williams - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Registered Linux User # 135678
Powered by SuSE 7.2 
_______________________________________________
http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives, Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, Etc 
->http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users

Reply via email to