Same batch file, so yes.
It would be possible to convert the batch file into a perl or ruby scripts plus a one-line batch that starts the interpreter + script,
Hmm, aren't you shutting with 'Kanonen auf Spatzen'? I have running the standalone-context here on WindowsME. I have modifyed the original batch-files a bit and I had to adapt some entrys in scite, where cmd.exe is called. (btw isn't it possible to call the command interpreter via COMMSPEC? So the whole thing is not depending on the command interpreter.) Wolfgang
wwl@musensturm.de wrote:
Same batch file, so yes.
It would be possible to convert the batch file into a perl or
ruby
scripts plus a one-line batch that starts the interpreter +
script,
Hmm,
aren't you shutting with 'Kanonen auf Spatzen'?
Perhaps, but the advantage is that you don't have to aim :-)
I have running the standalone-context here on WindowsME. I have modifyed the original batch-files a bit
If the batch file is still functionally equivalent, it would make sense to include it in the distribution. I vaguely recall that I had removed all of the 'smart' stuff from the batch file to please command.com, making it much less functional, but perhaps that is more an indication of how well I know command.com ;-) Cheers, Taco
Taco Hoekwater wrote:
If the batch file is still functionally equivalent, it would make sense to include it in the distribution. I vaguely recall that I had removed all of the 'smart' stuff from the batch file to please command.com, making it much less functional, but perhaps that is more an indication of how well I know command.com ;-)
sure, we can add a working bat file as xxx-win98.bat or so Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
Taco, Hans, This would be terrific if we had a working bat for Win98. My colleague would be extremely happy. Thanks for considering this. On Aug 3, 2006, at 7:30 AM, Hans Hagen wrote:
Taco Hoekwater wrote:
If the batch file is still functionally equivalent, it would make sense to include it in the distribution. I vaguely recall that I had removed all of the 'smart' stuff from the batch file to please command.com, making it much less functional, but perhaps that is more an indication of how well I know command.com ;-)
sure, we can add a working bat file as xxx-win98.bat or so
Hans
----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ ntg-context mailing list ntg-context@ntg.nl http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
participants (4)
-
David Arnold -
Hans Hagen -
Taco Hoekwater -
wwl＠musensturm.de