但是我仍然申明
这种缩写很没有意思
先执行for再执行echo %n%
既简单又清晰
还不会出现我所说的上述问题
一行代码和几行代码 各有其优缺点
磨灭任何一方的作用都是不妥的
之所以缩成一行写 无非是想利用上call
从而说明 call一定程度上代替了 setlocal enabledelayedexpansion的作用
是否能够100%的代替? 不置可否!
But I still declare
This kind of abbreviation is really uninteresting
First execute for and then execute echo %n%
It is simple and clear
And it won't have the above-mentioned problems I mentioned
One-line code and multi-line code each have their own advantages and disadvantages
It is improper to erase the role of either party
The reason for writing it in one line is nothing but wanting to make use of call
Thus illustrating that call replaces the role of setlocal enabledelayedexpansion to a certain extent
Can it replace 100%? It's undecided!