in reply to Re^6: Execute by order
in thread Execute by order

TFT BrowserUk ,

start looks familiar, but the *NIX-like re-direction syntax ? Is it/has it been recently introduced ?

A user level that continues to overstate my experience :-))

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^8: Execute by order
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Aug 13, 2009 at 14:47 UTC
    but the *NIX-like re-direction syntax ? Is it/has it been recently introduced ?

    No. It's been in cmd.exe for the last 16 years!

    And it(*) was in command.com for under DOS for 10 years or more before that. My memory doesn't recall whether it was a part of DOS v1.0, I think you may have had to wait until v1.25 circa. 1983.

    (*)Albeit a somewhat broken implementation that used files rather than memory for the transfer buffers.


    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
      1>file 2>file works but &1 does not
      perl -le" warn 1; print 2; " 2>&1 >one

        Hm. Works for me:

        c:\test>perl -lE" say, warn for 1 .. 5" 2>&1 | perl -nE"say qq[Got:'$_ +']" Got:'Warning: something's wrong at -e line 1. ' Got:'Warning: something's wrong at -e line 1. ' Got:'Warning: something's wrong at -e line 1. ' Got:'Warning: something's wrong at -e line 1. ' Got:'Warning: something's wrong at -e line 1. ' Got:'1 ' Got:'2 ' Got:'3 ' Got:'4 ' Got:'5 '

        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.