 | | Re: TXT-file question —David Eaton
|
| | | (...) There may be some batch commands you can use, but I'm not sure offhand-- I used to be somewhat of a whiz with Windows NT batch (1), but it's been a while... not to mention that I know Windows 95/98 didn't have the same functionality for "for" (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: TXT-file question —Thomas Wölk
|
| | | | <snip> (...) have (...) on (...) was (...) <snip> and <sigh> oh dear, yup those were the days, writing simple batch files and people calling you a programer. my computers were organized and navigated with batch files since 92 because windows was so (...) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: TXT-file question —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Oh, I would usually scoff anyone who called themselves a programmer for having written batch code, but this stuff was fully fledged programming. My boss had me doing testing on a linker that was written for a DSP. It started as "maybe you (...) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: TXT-file question —Thomas Wölk
|
| | | | David Eaton <deaton@intdata.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: H7DtC2.CM3@lugnet.com... (...) with (...) wacky (...) wasn't saying batch coding is programming. the stress was meant to be on "simple" and on the mistaking batch coding for programming. (...) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
