Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!sunic!news.funet.fi!tukki.jyu.fi!jyu.fi!otto From: otto@tukki.jyu.fi (Otto J. Makela) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer Subject: Re: Long command lines Message-ID: Date: 23 Sep 90 14:52:56 GMT References: <26da5df5@ralf> <7192@hydra.Helsinki.FI> <1990Sep20.102811.9190@canterbury.ac.nz> <10522@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <1990Sep21.104931.9205@canterbury.ac.nz> Sender: news@tukki.jyu.fi (News articles) Organization: Turing Police, Criminal AI section Lines: 22 In-Reply-To: phys169@canterbury.ac.nz's message of 21 Sep 90 01:29:56 GMT In article <1990Sep21.104931.9205@canterbury.ac.nz> phys169@canterbury.ac.nz writes: [...] (d) if any parameters start with an "@", and your program has no special reason for accepting parameters starting with an "@", expand the filename following the "@" (if possible) by including the contents of that file in the command line at that point. AAARRGGGH! Exactly what we don't need is making a new set of filenames (that is, the filenames starting with '@') unusable. The filename space is small enough in MS-DOS as it is (yes, I know, many programs do already use '@' as a include-data-from-this-file character -- it is a BAD choice nonetheless). I hate it when I have to type ".\@files" just to get at a file which happens to have this name. Some MS-DOS utilities are even "smart" enough to BREAK the line after the ".\", try to include "@files" at the command line and THEN COMPLAIN ABOUT THE LEADING ".\" BEING SYNTACTICALLY INCORRECT ! Why not use a character like '+' or some such which is already illegal in MeSsy-DOS filenames in the first place ? -- * * * Otto J. Makela * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Phone: +358 41 613 847, BBS: +358 41 211 562 (CCITT, Bell 2400/1200/300) * * Mail: Kauppakatu 1 B 18, SF-40100 Jyvaskyla, Finland, EUROPE * * * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *