srudolf@gopnbg.gopas.sub.org (Stefan Schleifer) (01/12/90)
Hi u out there. Has anyone tried before the "+"-DOS commands and can tell me about them? What i mean is: (Examples...) +md creates a sub-dir called d + md creates a sub-dir called md +copy tries to copy the file Y + copy tries to copy the file PY + copy tries to copy the file OPY That works fine with every DOS-command on all DOS-Versions since 2.11 i tried with... This is usefull for creating a tmp-sub dir that u only wish to use once and which u delete later...: type +md create "D" type +cd change to it.... type cd .. to leave it... type +rd to remove it. Ok, my question is: Does that only happen on MY DOS-Version(s)? What is this originally thougt for? ;-) Have a nice day Stefan ...for this is my 1st international posting, i hope i did well... ;-) .gnut@prassl.gopas.sub.org....Stefan Schleifer....+49 911 9933777...W-Germany.
Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (01/14/90)
In article <5665@gopnbg.UUCP>, srudolf@gopnbg.gopas.sub.org (Stefan Schleifer) wrote: }Hi u out there. } }Has anyone tried before the "+"-DOS commands and can tell me about them? }What i mean is: (Examples...) }+md creates a sub-dir called d } [etc] } }Ok, my question is: Does that only happen on MY DOS-Version(s)? }What is this originally thougt for? ;-) I believe that this is a bug (it is present in MSDOS 3.3 COMMAND.COM but not 4DOS). -- UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=- 412-268-3053 (school) -=- FAX: ask ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/46 "How to Prove It" by Dana Angluin Disclaimer? I claimed something? 14. proof by importance: A large body of useful consequences all follow from the proposition in question.
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (01/15/90)
<5665@gopnbg.UUCP>, srudolf@gopnbg.gopas.sub.org (Stefan Schleifer) : -}Has anyone tried before the "+"-DOS commands and can tell me about them? -} [etc] Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU <25b07b18@ralf> : -I believe that this is a bug (it is present in MSDOS 3.3 COMMAND.COM but not -4DOS). I'm sure Microsoft will be thrilled to learn that MS-DOS behavior is being judged in terms of conformance to 4DOS, especially after years of being judged only in unprintable terms :-)