dir command >> exe?

[Glenn]

If you think INT 21 isn't fundamentally important to how command.com operates, well, as usual, you're confused again.

[Agamemnus]

What I meant is:

command.com is different across windoze versions, and in some cases may not exist.

EDIT: I patched up your routine a bit, Plasma, and got it to work with the program.

[Plasma]

I never said there was anything wrong with SHELL or DIR. I did point out that the common solution of SHELL "DIR >somefile.txt" is not reliable, due to the fact that a temporary file has to be created, and the current directory is not always writeable. Most people who use this method do not assure that this temporary file can be created, they just assume it can be.

I'm not a freaking moron, I know how DIR works.

[Glenn]

But as I said, that doesn't relate to the reliability of using SHELL and DIR. It relates to the reliability of careless assumptions (which is an oxymoron). There is no need to assume that the current directory resides on a disk that is writable or to write the file to the current directory. People trying to program who don't even know what disks they have that are writable shouldn't be trying. (I have a few more years experience than you catering to people trying to use computers who don't have the basic qualifications to be trying in the first place. It's not as easy or painless as you make it sound. )

(And I never said that you did say it was wrong to use SHELL and DIR. I never, for the record, said it was wrong to just use the interrupt call directly either. )

And Agamemnus, I've never used any version of windows that didn't at least provide a command.com for DOS programs to work. If you're using such an implementation/installation, what are you doing trying to run DOS programs with it? (And the differences between different command.com's are irrelevant in regard to this context. If anything, DIR works *better* with the newer versions of windows.)

[na_th_an]

With "from QB" do you mean "From a DOS box"?

Nope. I mean from QB. The command

Code:

shell "dir"

will show short filenames (~n stuff)

dir typed directly in a DOS box works correctly

[Plasma]

Glenn, I understand what you're saying, but I don't know why you're saying it. If you agree that I was not talking about the reliability of DIR and SHELL themselves, then why are you rambling on about them?

My point was: using interrupts to get a directory list is more reliable than a simple SHELL "DIR >bleh.txt". I think you agree. No need to give me your life story.

[Agamemnus]

cleaner too.

Killing things isn't pleasant.

[Glenn]

anyone on this planet would be interested in my life story. (Trust me, you haven't heard it.) Why are *you* rambling? Go reread what I wrote and then maybe you'd resolve the confusion. I think I've made it clear that I *don't* agree that there's anything unreliable (or less reliable) about using SHELL and DIR. The unreliability you're talking about has nothing to do with SHELL or DIR. *That's* the point. It was never about whether or not to use SHELL and DIR. (If you aren't interested in the point, that's *your* business. )

[Antoni Gual]

Nathan:
:o
I never noticed it... It happens in W2000 also. Nice feature..
Is as if dir was invoked with /-n...and it does'nt let you use /n...

[Plasma]

Listen, Glenn, I know how you like to nitpick. It doesn't matter what I say, because you're always going to be correct. I know you know what I'm saying, but you choose to nitpick. Fine, whatever. Have fun talking to yourself.