Can an .exe invoked from a .bat file shut down execution of latercmds?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RichardOnRails
  • Start date Start date
R

RichardOnRails

I've got a 3-line bat file:
rake ready_for_the_day
@echo ------
rake COFFEE_CUPS=5 make_coffee

(BTW: Rake is Ruby's version of make: it invokes Ruby commands rather
the U*ix cmds. The arguments identify a task within a Rakefile in the
current directory, possibly with settings for environment variables)

The above ,bat file invokes the first command successfully, AFAIK, and
then quits
When I comment out the first cmd with a leading colon the echo works,
as does the 2nd cmd

Could a Rake.exe shut down the batch cmd that invoked it. If so, is
there any way I could insulate the batch command file from such a
shutdown attempt?

Thanks in Advance,
Richard
 
I've got a 3-line bat file:
    rake ready_for_the_day
    @echo ------
    rake COFFEE_CUPS=5 make_coffee

(BTW: Rake is Ruby's version of make: it invokes Ruby commands rather
the U*ix cmds.  The arguments identify a task within a Rakefile in the
current directory, possibly with settings for environment variables)

The above ,bat file invokes the first command successfully, AFAIK, and
then quits
When I comment out the first cmd with a leading colon the echo works,
as does the 2nd cmd

Could a Rake.exe shut down the batch cmd that invoked it.  If so,  is
there any way I could insulate the batch command file from such a
shutdown attempt?

Thanks in Advance,
Richard
Click to expand...

Problem solved:
Sorry, folks. I just remembered this question I similar to one I
asked the other day.
There the answer was "invoked commands like rake as follows:
cmd /c the.exe
That worked here, too.

Best wishes,
Richard
 
message
I've got a 3-line bat file:
rake ready_for_the_day
@echo ------
rake COFFEE_CUPS=5 make_coffee

(BTW: Rake is Ruby's version of make: it invokes Ruby commands rather
the U*ix cmds. The arguments identify a task within a Rakefile in the
current directory, possibly with settings for environment variables)

The above ,bat file invokes the first command successfully, AFAIK, and
then quits
When I comment out the first cmd with a leading colon the echo works,
as does the 2nd cmd

Could a Rake.exe shut down the batch cmd that invoked it. If so, is
there any way I could insulate the batch command file from such a
shutdown attempt?

Thanks in Advance,
Richard
Click to expand...

Try this:
@echo off
start /b rake ready_for_the_day
echo Label 1
pause
rake COFFEE_CUPS=5 make_coffee

Note also that you should include full paths for all file names referenced
in batch files if you want the batch file to be robust. Rake.exe has no path
in your example.
 
message







Try this:
@echo off
start /b rake ready_for_the_day
echo Label 1
pause
rake COFFEE_CUPS=5 make_coffee

Note also that you should include full paths for all file names referenced
in batch files if you want the batch file to be robust. Rake.exe has no path
in your example.
Click to expand...

Hi Pegasys,

Thanks for your response.
Rake.exe has no path in your example.
Click to expand...
True, but Rake's path is provided in my installation of Ruby: K:/
_Utilities/ruby186-26_rc2/ruby/bin/ (BTW, Ruby adjusts path
separators to the OS environment.)

I looked up the specs on cmd and start. It looks like they were drawn
up by lawyers :-)
In your view, is there a reason to prefer "start /b" to "cmd /c"?

Thanks in Advance,
Richard
 
I'm coming in late on this but given the subject of thread ... I wrote a
program (EXE) years ago as a menu front end that rewrote the batch file it
was invoked from. The edits were what got parsed when the exe finished, the
new line(s) executed, returned to batch file, looped to top of it, reinvoked
exe which would change it again to new selection etc. etc. In other words
the batch file got reparsed after return from the exe.

message
message







Try this:
@echo off
start /b rake ready_for_the_day
echo Label 1
pause
rake COFFEE_CUPS=5 make_coffee

Note also that you should include full paths for all file names referenced
in batch files if you want the batch file to be robust. Rake.exe has no
path
in your example.
Click to expand...

Hi Pegasys,

Thanks for your response.
Rake.exe has no path in your example.
Click to expand...
True, but Rake's path is provided in my installation of Ruby: K:/
_Utilities/ruby186-26_rc2/ruby/bin/ (BTW, Ruby adjusts path
separators to the OS environment.)

I looked up the specs on cmd and start. It looks like they were drawn
up by lawyers :-)
In your view, is there a reason to prefer "start /b" to "cmd /c"?

Thanks in Advance,
Richard
 
message
Hi Pegasys,

Thanks for your response.

True, but Rake's path is provided in my installation of Ruby: K:/
_Utilities/ruby186-26_rc2/ruby/bin/ (BTW, Ruby adjusts path
separators to the OS environment.)

I looked up the specs on cmd and start. It looks like they were drawn
up by lawyers :-)
In your view, is there a reason to prefer "start /b" to "cmd /c"?

Thanks in Advance,
Richard
Click to expand...

"Start" and "cmd" are different things.

"Start" creates a new thread, one that is independent from the current
thread. You use it when you want to invoke two processes that are
independent of each other..

"Cmd" spawns another instance of the Command Processor. In other words, it
causes the batch file to go off at a tangent. However, the batch file will
not continue until the new command processor finishes its job.

The complexity of switches that worries you is a delight for programmers
because it gives them great flexibility.
 
message







"Start" and "cmd" are different things.

"Start" creates a new thread, one that is independent from the current
thread. You use it when you want to invoke two processes that are
independent of each other..

"Cmd" spawns another instance of the Command Processor. In other words, it
causes the batch file to go off at a tangent. However, the batch file will
not continue until the new command processor finishes its job.

The complexity of switches that worries you is a delight for programmers
because it gives them great flexibility.
Click to expand...

Excellent explanation. I'll think about this if I decide to resume
this batch-file approach.
I just started exploring a perhaps more appropriate way to executing
my commands successively: Using Rake, which a a Ruby version of the
venerable Un*x make utility. But that's in suspense while I work on a
more pressing problem.

But thanks for illuminating this issue for me.

Best wishes,
Richard
 
Back
Top