Using BASH redirects and "prompt" files to interact with commands/scripts ??

konsolebox · 07-25-2006, 05:24 PM

example in a text like 'a ab abc abcd', the cmd's for loop can do selecting a, or just ab abc, or all but not a. and many other things without using a program like cut.

it can also skip lines, have custom delimeters and eol, do some variable expansion like remove quotes, show pathname only, show filename only, drive letter only... many others more.

like bash for's (( ; ; )), the cmd's for also have for /l

i guess it's something like we can call.. a merged tool of bash's for and cut with some more parsing.

raskin · 07-25-2006, 05:31 PM

Interesting. Though, as I remember, power tools are behind syntax forest. Maybe it's an idea to have a more powerful builtin. (Too bad it can't be just shell function)

CroMagnon · 07-26-2006, 12:56 PM

In addition to what konsolebox said about splitting the text, this can also be applied to files with /F, which allows you to do some reasonably complicated processing. For example, you can use REG to dump registry keys to a file and then process them one by one. Delayed expansion is another feature that is very useful but usually overlooked. For the best details on what CMD can do, check FOR /?, SET /?, CMD /?, and SETLOCAL /?. A shame there is no simple 'man cmd'

archtoad6 · 07-26-2006, 02:57 PM

In W2k there was a fairly comprehensive master help topic (F1).

It had links to the sections for each of the cmd-line commands.

Especially useful was the "batch" section & the "for" section it referenced.

My memory (Win free since mid-May 2005) is that it is very hard to find; & once you do, bookmark it.

konsolebox · 07-26-2006, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raskin

Interesting. Though, as I remember, power tools are behind syntax forest. Maybe it's an idea to have a more powerful builtin. (Too bad it can't be just shell function)

nah i don't want a heavy function included in the bash shell. that will just make things slower.

raskin · 07-27-2006, 03:59 AM

Well, if you don't use it, it just increases executable size. Not that it will have a great impact (600K already). If you use it, it replaces writing logic in bash - and gives speed.

konsolebox · 07-27-2006, 04:14 AM

i don't know. bash strictly follows the posix's specifications so that's still impossible to happen. especially if the code came from WXs.

raskin · 07-27-2006, 08:33 AM

Ha. Very funny. No extensions. Not one. 'caller' builtin was in POSIX forever. And surely no omissions.

OK, I don't ask in bash, only in Zsh.

Seriously, bash has extensions. I don't think the mentioned builtin should mimic windows shell behavior (which is not suitable for complex commands), but it could be comparable in power.

But as I'm too lazy to write such a builtin for zsh, it's only theory.