"Monitor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "billious" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:48985cbf$0$3398$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> "Jim Carlock" <news@localhost> wrote in message
>> news:e640%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > First, I know this is not a Visual Basic question. And I do not
>> > even know if this limited to only one machine. But I expected
>> > the above to list files like sed.exe, sed342.exe, sed.txt and
>> > so on. However, I ended up with some very odd results. I don't
>> > think I've ever seen the "dir" command behave this way. I did
>> > not see an XP cmd group and the Win2K cmd group does not seem
>> > to get much attention.
>> >
>> > C:\test\>dir sed*.* /s
>> >
>> > When I typed that into a cmd.exe prompt on XP SP2, the following
>> > were identified as matching files:
>> >
>> > 04/18/2004 06:00 PM 2,176 SetStaticByteField_3.cpp
>> > 04/18/2004 06:00 PM 2,158 SetStaticByteField_4.cpp
>> > 04/18/2004 06:00 PM 2,157 SetStaticByteField_1.cpp
>> > 04/18/2004 06:00 PM 2,178 SetStaticByteField_2.cpp
>> >
>> > 11/27/2001 03:59 PM 234 server-news-lock.gif
>> > 02/21/2004 04:16 PM 370 server-remote-lock-new.gif
>> >
>> > Wondering if someone can duplicate that on Win2K or other versions
>> > of XP?
>> >
>> > Thank you for your time.
>> >
>> > --
>> > JC
>> > Natural Cure For Pink-Eye (Conjunctivitis)
>> >
> http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...nctivitis.html
>> >
>> >
>>
>> If you're looking for an XP-oriented batch group, try
>> alt.msdos.batch.nt -
>> or alt.msdos.batch (both are about the same nowadays...)
>>
>> As for the problem - almost certainly finding short filenames. The short
>> filename seems to preserve the first two characters only reasonably
>> reliably. What follows id Hobson's choice - especially after the fourth
>> "reasonably similar" filename.
>>
>> DIR /S will show the short-filename.
>
> I wonder why you bothered to answer. The short file name issue
> was already covered by two previous respondents (to whom you
> failed to give credit), and your own contributions were by and
> large incorrect: Win2000.cmdprompt.admin IS an appropriate
> newsgroup for asking questions about console commands, and
> the /s switch, as Jeff pointed out, will not show the short file name.
>
>
You seem to misunderstand the nature of the internet.
Simply because a post is made at a particular time does not mean that it is
visible at that time to everyone. There were no responses visible to me when
I replied.
win2000etc is an appropriate but ill-frequented group. The groups that I
mentioned are far more active - even if they don't have the magic
"microsoft" or "cmdprompt" as part of their names. Further, it was extra
information, seeing as neither of the other respondents whose responses I
hadn't seen hadn't mentioned them.
Certainly, the /S switch was a typo and should have been /X. Mea culpa. I
also typed "id" in place of "is." Mea maxima culpa.
But what else about what I said was "incorrect?"
The newsgroups?
That alt.msdos.batch and alt.msdos.batch.nt are about the same nowadays?
(See 'on-topic policy' comments of 22/8/08 in both groups)
Generation of short filenames? Well - that's based on empirical data. Try
for /l %i in (1,1,8) do dir>"this is a long filename%i.txt"
which should generate 8 filenames which will be "reasonably similar." On my
machine, here's the result of a dir/x :
06/08/08 01:41 4,355 THISIS~1.TXT this is a long filename1.txt
06/08/08 01:41 4,419 THISIS~2.TXT this is a long filename2.txt
06/08/08 01:41 4,483 THISIS~3.TXT this is a long filename3.txt
06/08/08 01:41 4,547 THISIS~4.TXT this is a long filename4.txt
06/08/08 01:41 4,611 TH18C2~1.TXT this is a long filename5.txt
06/08/08 01:41 4,675 TH18C6~1.TXT this is a long filename6.txt
06/08/08 01:41 4,739 TH28CA~1.TXT this is a long filename7.txt
06/08/08 01:41 4,803 TH28CE~1.TXT this is a long filename8.txt
Which, I believe, proves the point. The short filename retains the first 2
characters from the lfn in each case. For the first 4, the filename is the
first 6 non-space characters then a tilda and the sequence 1,2,3,4 - the
extent (or "secondary filename" if you're old enough to recognise that
terminology) is retained.
After the first four, the first two characters are followed by what is
apparently a hex code then ~1.
Or are you saying that DIR would not incorrectly report on the short
filenames?
So - what about my claims is "incorrect?"
And then I'll put the question back to you - why did you bother responding,
since you had nothing positive to contribute, only largely-incorrect
criticism and to repeat the indication of the error that you acknowledge had
already been detected?
