DosTips.com

After this patch cmd.exe for windows x86 would use the same behavior on MultibyteToWideChar that cmd.exe for windows 7. This means that codepage 65001 is fully supported. I'd qualify that to " supported at the same level as Win7 " - which is not "fully". Pipes are still broken, ...

Sponge Belly wrote:But why doesn’t…

Code: Select all

(call;>>file.txt)

clobber the SUB at the end of file.txt?

Because 'call;' outputs nothing at all. You can check the timestamps of 'file.txt' to see that it wasn't modified. The SUB is only clobbered if there is something actually being appended to the file.

Liviu

Wouldn't it be awesome to work with arrow keys in a Batch file? Good question. Problem is that most command line utilities work at the "standard streams" interfaces, and rightfully so since that's what allows the usual redirection and piping. However, the standard streams are character ba...

For UTF-8 ..., dwFlags must be set to either 0 .... Otherwise, the function fails with ERROR_INVALID_FLAGS. Right, and also for a few other codepages listed at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/dd319072(v=vs.85).aspx . That's what makes your patch work for codepage 65001. Howe...

Because cmd.exe for windows xp cannot run a batch script when it use the codepage 65001 (utf-8), I investigate the cause, and I found. Also, I created a patch for it. That's quite a feat. Cmd2 seems to run batch tasks under codepage 65001, which xp couldn't. Don't know how applicable it's going to ...

using raster font and codepage 65001, when I run 65001.bat I get this message on windows 7 japanase: the system cannot write to the specified device Using a raster font, you'll get the exact same error on an English Windows while trying to display "‹αß©∂€›" under chcp 437 for example. Tha...

If I run the 65001.cmd using the codepage 65001 (for comodity windows 7 that run batch files using codepage 65001 ...) it not save the variable correctly, it corrupt it 65001.cmd works correctly for me in win7x64.sp1 when run under chcp 65001 at a cmd prompt using a Unicode font (note: it does not ...

I tested it in a windows 7 japanase, and the same corruption behavior happen. Maybe is impossible run a utf8 encoded batch, using codepage 65001. I tried on windows xp and windows 7, both japanase, and none works ok. And, also windows 7 japanase using raster font cannot display a variable that as i...

I tested if there is any difference between a multiline caret and a "natural" linefeed or a linefeed from a percent expansion. I never saw a difference until now I thought for a moment that the difference could be in the hidden CRs. A "natural" linefeed is actually a CR+LF on di...

no label (comment) is needed, but another caret (at least under win 7 home 64 bit) Confirmed under xp.sp3 as well. @echo off ^ echo this line is ignored echo this line is executed ( ^ ^ echo this line is ignored echo this line is executed ) Turns out if the last character in a file is SUB (Ctrl-Z) ...

penpen wrote:Reminds me to the macro comments, but without the "<nul" part.

Very interesting. Also reminds me of other label parsing craziness sighted at http://www.dostips.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3803.

Liviu

Enclosing quotes without the extension seems to be a special case. Indeed. And that special case breaks self-referential batch code that relies on "%~f0" at the top level, such as: - for/f rereading in order to display embedded help; - relaunching "%~f0" in recursive or hybrid s...

It has come up before that the "<!-- ::" syntax (or "<!-- :") could be used to build hybrid cmd+xml files. There have been examples of it for cmd+html/mshta/wsf, but I don't recall a cmd+xslt one. This post seeks to cover that missing part. Anyone not interested in xml/xslt might...

I didn't meant this from the ".WSF" parsers view. I meant this from a XML parsers view Good point, thanks for making it. WSH (cscript/wscript) seems to use its own internal XML parser for WSF files, other than and different from the MSXML or XMLLITE builtins. The WSF handling of CDATA is ...

I can see that the issue has been resolved to everybody's satisfaction, but still have a side comment on this. TBH I see no real reason for accuracy when using integer math which rounds down While it's true that the builtin integer division truncates (rounds down), it's also easy to use it to "...