OpenEuphoria

Re: What is the reason for this?

• Posted by Bob Elia <bobelia200 at netzero.net> Aug 17, 2005
• 590 views

At 12:15 PM 8/16/05 -0700, you wrote:

>
>
>posted by: Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com>
>
>DB James wrote:
> > In the course of some experimentation in WinXP with sending commands to 
> cmd.exe, I
> > found this situation:
> >
> > If I use RUN cmd to bring up the console for commands in NT-style OS, 
> and type in echo.
> > > "c:\long dir name\long file name.txt" it creates the file named "long 
> file name.txt"
> > in the correct directory and adds three bytes 20 0D 0A.  But if I use 
> the system command
> > in an Eu ".ex" file sending this:
> > system("cmd echo. > "&dQuote&fullPath&dQuote,2) then it fails.  What is 
> the actual
> > difference between typing a command into the console, and sending the 
> same command via a system()
> > call?

Quark:
         Use:  system("echo. > "&dQuote&fullPath&dQuote,2)
There's no need to call yet another instance of cmd.exe.  That's what 
"system" does.  I don't currently have XP to test this on but it works on 98.

>When you run system() with ex.exe on XP, it seems to use
>some sort of DOS emulation mode, where long filenames don't work,
>and some commands do not have modern options. Someone pointed out
>for instance the the /s option on the rd command is rejected.
>
>Solution: use exwc.exe, or just avoid long filenames etc.
>
>Regards,
>    Rob Craig
>    Rapid Deployment Software
>    http://www.RapidEuphoria.com

Rob:

         XP's DOS box is a modified earlier version of the command 
interpreter. I do not believe that it is emulated. If it were, I would 
expect a speed reduction which I have never noticed.  Type "ver" and it 
shows something like
... 5.something rather than 7.1 as it shows under 98.  I know for a fact 
that the Windows clipboard support (via dos interrupts) is *not* present in 
this version.  Possibly LFN support as well but I don't remember.  Juergen 
might know.

                 Bob