Echo., Echo., Echo/, Etc.

[Jonathan de Boyne Pollard]

>
>
> I've been using '.' (ECHO.) only because it's been convenient.
>

You could instead try using it because it's the officially documented
syntax.

[t***@virgin.net]

On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 10:54:59 +0000, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:

>>
>>
>> I've been using '.' (ECHO.) only because it's been convenient.
>>
>
> You could instead try using it because it's the officially documented
> syntax.

The point is of Franks message is that he is aware of other characters
which can replicate and/or improve upon that which is officially
documented. Had you tried the examples he provided you would have been
aware that the official method fails. Frank merely wishes to find arguments
for or against using an alternative to that which is documented due to
it's failure in the case offered.

[Jonathan de Boyne Pollard]

>
>>>
>>> I've been using '.' (ECHO.) only because it's been convenient.
>>>
>> You could instead try using it because it's the officially documented
>> syntax.
>>
> The point is of Franks message [...]
>
I read the (better) original.

> Frank merely wishes to find arguments for or against using an
> alternative to that which is documented due to it's failure in the
> case offered.
>
Indeed. And I gave xem one such argument.

It's officially documented by both Microsoft and JP Software, in case
that implied point wasn't obvious. I don't document it as the official
syntax in my command interpreter, because it isn't; but I do mention its
common usage in the documentation for the ECHODOT command.

[Jonathan de Boyne Pollard]

>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been using '.' (ECHO.) only because it's been convenient.
>>>>>
>>>> You could instead try using it because it's the officially
>>>> documented syntax.
>>>>
>>> Frank merely wishes to find arguments for or against using an
>>> alternative to that which is documented due to it's failure in the
>>> case offered.
>>>
>> Indeed. And I gave xem one such argument.
>>
>> It's officially documented by both Microsoft and JP Software, in case
>> that implied point wasn't obvious. I don't document it as the
>> official syntax in my command interpreter, because it isn't; but I do
>> mention its common usage in the documentation for the ECHODOT command.
>>
> Was your argument therefore to use a method which doesn't work simply
> because it's the officially documented way?
>
If it were, I'd have written that, instead of what I actually did
write. Hint: Read it again, slowly and carefully this time, paying
proper attention to what it was replying to. Another hint: Then read
the subsequent reply again as well, slowly and carefully, for further
edification. For yet more edification still, read what Rex Conn had to
say (here) on the subject of these various parsing quirks back in 1995.
And, indeed, read what Raymond Chen had to say on the matter of the ECHO
command in April 2008 and October 2009.

[George Orwell]

Jonathan de Boyne Pollard,

If the OP wanted to crosspost to the newsgroups
comp.os.msdos.4dos and microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin
he would have done so.

Quit 'jacking' the threads!


Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it

[Les Matthew]

On 04/02/2010 10:54, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
>>
>>
>> I've been using '.' (ECHO.) only because it's been convenient.
>>
>
> You could instead try using it because it's the officially documented
> syntax.
>


Now there's a name I've not seen since my old BBS days. :)


les.

[Jonathan de Boyne Pollard]

>
>
> Now there's a name I've not seen since my old BBS days. :)
>
Which name is that? Rex Conn, Raymond Chen, Echo, or Etc? (-:

[Les Matthew]

On 09/02/2010 19:28, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
>>
>>
>> Now there's a name I've not seen since my old BBS days. :)
>>
> Which name is that? Rex Conn, Raymond Chen, Echo, or Etc? (-:
>

Or Simon Patten? :)

les.