Command Extensions and ASSOC/FTYPE

[Ritchie]

According to the NT4/2000/XP/2003 cmd.exe help screen:-

The command extensions involve changes and/or additions to the following
commands:

<snip>
ASSOC
FTYPE

What the changes and/or additions for ASSOC and FTYPE?

 

[Matthias Tacke]

According to the NT4/2000/XP/2003 cmd.exe help screen:-

The command extensions involve changes and/or additions to the following
commands:

<snip>
ASSOC
FTYPE

What the changes and/or additions for ASSOC and FTYPE?

If this is a question, I don't understand it.

If you want to know details about file associations then

enter

assoc /? >readme.txt
assoc >>readme.txt
ftype /? >>readme.txt
ftype >>readme.txt

and then take some time to read readme.txt with your favorite
editor/viewer

hth
Matthias

 

[Ritchie]

If this is a question, I don't understand it.

How about: What are the changes and/or additions to ASSOC and FTYPE when
command extensions are enabled/disabled?

 

[Matthias Tacke]

How about: What are the changes and/or additions to ASSOC and FTYPE when
command extensions are enabled/disabled?

Ok, I see the point. In cmd /? a different behavior is mentioned also
for assoc ftype.
I can't say if there really is one.

Matthias

 

[Garry Deane]

According to the NT4/2000/XP/2003 cmd.exe help screen:-

The command extensions involve changes and/or additions to the following
commands:

<snip>
ASSOC
FTYPE

What the changes and/or additions for ASSOC and FTYPE?

None that I'm aware of. Maybe MS ran a text search for "extension" on
the help text and listed all the matches as commands which were
modified if command extensions were enabled.

Garry

 

[Ritchie]

None that I'm aware of. Maybe MS ran a text search for "extension" on
the help text and listed all the matches as commands which were
modified if command extensions were enabled.

Yep, that exactly what I thought. Assuming it's a mistake, how can
they get it wrong in four different O/S's...

 

[Matthias Tacke]

Yep, that exactly what I thought. Assuming it's a mistake, how can
they get it wrong in four different O/S's...

Shit happens,

and if errors don't harm, its difficult to get rid of them if they
exist undiscovered for a time.

And even if they harm (around 150 to 250 mails with attached worms
i receive every day speak for themselves) its difficould to recode
without introducing new errors.

Matthias

 

[Mark V]

Ritchie wrote in

Yep, that exactly what I thought. Assuming it's a mistake, how can
they get it wrong in four different O/S's...

I don't thunk it's a mistake, just a mis-statement. ASSOC and FTYPE
_are_ "changed"...they are not available at all with Command
Extentions disabled! (W2K, SP4)

C:\TEMP>cmd /E:OFF
Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195]
(C) Copyright 1985-2000 Microsoft Corp.

C:\TEMP>ftype
'ftype' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
operable program or batch file.

C:\TEMP>assoc
'assoc' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
operable program or batch file.

 

[Ritchie]

I don't thunk it's a mistake, just a mis-statement. ASSOC and FTYPE
_are_ "changed"...they are not available at all with Command
Extentions disabled! (W2K, SP4)

Ah... of course, they're internal commands. Thanks Mark.