China DOS Union

I set up a quick input in EditPlus!

Nothing more to say, it's hard to find a kindred spirit!

I've seen the command `ping/n 1 127.1` several times. I know the original meaning of this command, but what role does it play in code like this? Can you explain it to a newbie like me?

Thanks!

Originally posted by qzwqzw at 2008-6-25 10:38 PM:
It gets a bit chaotic when there are too many people
Plus there are a few who like to edit posts
After reading for a while, the train of thought gets disconnected

Now let's sort it out
ppdos initially just wanted to simplify the LZ's code
Then raised the helplessness...

My initial view has realized the mistake, basically unified the above - floor view,
But I think the abbreviated way of ppdos is incorrect

Originally posted by qzwqzw at 2008-6-25 10:39 PM:

Nothing to say, hard to find bosom friends啊

Haha, hard to find bosom friends, there are actually people with the same interest

Originally posted by quya at 2008-6-25 10:42 PM:
Several times I saw "ping/n 1 127.1", I know the original meaning of this command, but what role does it play in code like this? Can you explain it to me, a novice.

Thanks!

Search the forum for posts about batch processing runtime delay aspects

Regarding the code condensed into one line Personally speaking It is to be able to test directly in the DOS command line more conveniently Personally, I think it is necessary The test program is not redundant (just I'm lazy and don't want to create a batch file if it can be written in one line)

Originally posted by quya at 2008-6-25 10:42 PM:
I have seen the command "ping/n 1 127.1" several times. I know the original meaning of this command, but what role does it play in code like this? Could you explain it to this novice?

Thanks!

Read this post carefully
http://www.cn-dos.net/forum/viewthread.php?tid=8905#pid54227

Just got poisoned just now, don't know which hateful guy did it. Very depressed.

Another thing, is EditPlus good? There are such good things originally. Used to using Notepad, but it's tiring. Need to change. Download one first.

Originally posted by wxcute at 2008-6-25 11:19 PM:
Just got poisoned just now, don't know which hateful guy did it. Very depressed.

Also, is EditPlus good? There are such good things. Used to using Notepad, but it's tiring. Need to change. Download one first.

If everyone gets poisoned later and the antivirus software can't kill it, you can find me.

My old-fashioned batch processing may not work, but my ability to manually remove viruses is unparalleled in the world.

Shrink into one line to test directly in the command line without displaying the set/a part:

echo off&(for /f %i in ('dir /b') do set /a n+=1 >nul)&call echo There are %n% files(folders) in the directory&echo on

Learning

It seems that everyone lacks thorough practical spirit!

After discussing for so long, only after testing was it discovered that there are major problems in ppdos and the simplified code of zh159. Because all their codes can't stand the test of multiple runs.

The result of the first run is correct, for example, it's 7. But the result of the second run is wrong. It should be 14, but it's still 7. The third time is still wrong. It should be 21, but it's 14.

That is to say, in the environment where setlocal is not set, the environment variables will increase with the number of runs. But what is called and echoed out is always the result before the for execution. Unless the variable called and echoed is empty before this code runs.

The final conclusion is that it's impossible to completely replace echo!var! with call echo %var% in the connection statement

So the final argument I showed in the middle of building 26 is wrong.

Of course, this doesn't affect the view I mentioned in building 30. for+call can completely replace for+delay

As for the code in building 40, in addition to the common problems mentioned above, the idea also takes a detour. To not display set /a, only a @ mark is needed. There's no need to bring out the big gun of echo off.

(for /f %i in ('dir /b') do @set /a n+=1 >nul)&call echo There are %n% under the directory

But I still declare that this kind of abbreviation is very meaningless. Execute for first and then echo %n%, which is simple and clear, and won't have the above problems I mentioned. Why bother!

Originally posted by qzwqzw at 2008-6-26 01:58 PM:
It seems that everyone lacks the spirit of thorough practice!

After discussing for so long
Only after testing did we discover the major problems of ppdos and the simplified code of zh159
Because all their codes cannot withstand multiple runs...

That's right, simplifying the code is wrong, which is just like echoing once after a for loop is completed
And the code of the original poster can indeed replace the delayed variable
You can take a look at the code in my reply at floor 27. That call and the original poster's call are completely two different usages

Indeed, I forgot to use @ before set/a.

1. When using in the command line, if you don't clear the variable, the result next time will definitely increase, and you shouldn't be unaware of this!
2. When using in the command line, if there is simply a for followed by an echo, that's two commands entered (first enter the for and press Enter, then enter echo).

PS: It's best not to use call jump if possible, as it has a certain impact on efficiency.

Just a discussion about variable delay became so intense. I feel the code the original poster provided isn't anything new; I often use it when writing "subroutines".

But I have an off - topic comment: The example the original poster gave doesn't need to use both for and set (I like using batch scripts in the command line and like the casual feeling).

::Number of files

dir/a-d/b|find /c /v ""

::Number of directories

dir/ad/b|find /c /v ""

::Number of files and directories

dir/a-d|findstr/bc:"  "