Hi Marc,
}- This is a good enough reason to recommend folks use 4DOS to
}- replace their command.com files. It would make this job rather
}- easy so I just found out. The machine I'm on now has just
}- MS-DOS 5 (my DR-DOS 7 machine is gone) and I noticed there's
}- no find command. Since I'm using 4DOS it's not a problem.
I looked into 4DOS a while back and almost switched, but my
browser is Arachne and there are problems with the combination of
the two. :( I must say though you make 4DOS sound awfully good!
}- done in zoo.txt. The FOR variable, %d, is set for each file in
}- zoo.txt (I suppose that's like 'for %%d in (text1.txt
}- text3.txt) do del %%d' with regular command.com?). I think
}- regular command.com, or at least older ones, require two %
}- signs in batch files but only one from the command line. DO is
}- optional which is why I put it in brackets.
}- Anyway, I don't know if regular DOS supports the @filename
}- thing. I pulled out an old (1989) MS-DOS Batch Files book to
}- check on the FOR command for vanilla DOS. It includes some
}- good examples but nothing about that. It is old. Look into the
}- FOR command though to see if that would help.
I checked and OpenDOS does support both the @filelist thing and
the FOR/IF/DO batch commands, but the problem is still those c:'s
that FIND sticks in front of the filenames. The really maddening
thing is that it if would return the *full* path and filename then
DEL or XDEL would go ahead and delete the files!
Boanne
--
FROM: Over the hills and far away...
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A Dinosaurs Garden (collection of DOS links and files)
http://www.sound.net/~ashelton/dinosaur/dg.htm
*This is my bumper sticker for the Information Superhighway.
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
