Bug: Some internal commands return a dialog box

icfu · Post by *icfu » 2004-03-01, 10:49 UTC

Personally I am against modifying TC to support this (unless you have better arguments )

One of those completely useless phrases...

What exactly would be your disadvantage when people wanting to echo something can do that without the need for cmd /k or a batch file?
Or what if someone wants to have a quick look at all variables? Enter "set" and there you go. What's the sense of hardcoding some commands when you can have them all? Where is your point?

Being against something is always the easiest choice, you don't need to argue at all then...

Writing batch files for all commands is an intelligent workaround for a TC design flaw but no solution.

Here is a list with all commands starting from DOS to XP, what OS supports them, their paramters and much more:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rlively/MANUALS/INDEX.HTM

Icfu

IGL · Post by *IGL » 2004-03-01, 11:19 UTC

I do not sign under the request because it needs author to to some work in this matter while there are other importatnt functions to improve. But that is my personal opinion (as I have mentioned).

I have just provided a workaround.

Option to execute CMD /c... or CMD /k with any command that is not understood is not the best idea - it would be useful if you type SET, but in many other cases where I just put some unknown command I'd rather be informed that file is not found instaed of quickly opening and closing CMD window without any action.

Concerning >Or one could make a nice checkbox besides command line called "insert cmd /k before execution".
Actually you can press Shift+Enter to execute command in similiar way.
Is there really a need for such a checkbox?
About SET command - just create SET.BAT or type SET and press Shift+Enter.
With Shift + Enter you can even type SET | MORE .

Would adding such a checkbox be better than Shift+Enter?
(snd where should it be placed)

icfu · Post by *icfu » 2004-03-01, 11:49 UTC

So, my personal opinion is that there are so much important things to do that TC will be far from being perfect the next years anyway. I just wanted to express that I don't like the conservative attitude like "noone needs that because I don't need it", no big deal.

Option to execute CMD /c... or CMD /k with any command that is not understood is not the best idea - it would be useful if you type SET, but in many other cases where I just put some unknown command I'd rather be informed that file is not found instaed of quickly opening and closing CMD window without any action.

Logical error... How should TC know if the command you wanna execute exists or not when it doesn't start cmd shell and let that one decide?
So, to make all happy, checkbox seems best...

Actually you can press Shift+Enter to execute command in similiar way.
Is there really a need for such a checkbox?

Yep, there is. Shift-Enter executes the command but allows no further working in the shell because it uses noclose.pif which is completely antique.
cmd /k executes command and you are presented a prompt. If Shift-Enter would use %comspec% /k we would all be happy and this discussion wouldn't have been necessary probably...

About SET command - just create SET.BAT or type SET and press Shift+Enter.
With Shift + Enter you can even type SET | MORE .

That was just an example to make it more clear why it makes no sense to exclude apllications. Batch writing for trivial commands is even more antique than using pif-files imho. I use a file commander like TC because it saves my time, I don't wanna save the file commander's time...

Would adding such a checkbox be better than Shift+Enter?

See above, noclose.pif argument...

(snd where should it be placed)

That's secondary, don't you think? Place it inline with command line, right border for example, make the commandline sizeable, btw...

You could even add an addidional option in wincmd.ini:
AutoComspec=1/0

Icfu

Lefteous · Post by *Lefteous » 2004-03-01, 11:58 UTC

For german users - this is my opinion on these pif files:
http://www.ghisler.ch/board/viewtopic.php?t=1523

norfie · Post by *norfie » 2004-03-01, 12:08 UTC

icfu · Post by *icfu » 2004-03-01, 14:45 UTC

Noone is allowed to decline my suggestion because I think it is useful"

Completely wrong, I just can't accept refusal without logical reason. What's the point in refusing a feature when other people can profit and you have no disadvantage?
I proposed to make it optional so no need to refuse.

What is wrong with Shift+Enter?

IGL asked that, too, and I explained it with more than two words so please be so kind and read, thx.

Icfu

IGL · Post by *IGL » 2004-03-01, 14:49 UTC

There could be such an option to display the checkbox, but it should be only as an option, for I would not like to let it take space of the command line (which is narrow enough - ability to resize command line would be useful, I agree).

2Icfu
Do not accuse me of being narrow-minded, I could do the same (see Norfie's post). But I don't want to quarrel.
All I am asking for are the arguments - why it should be there.
-- peace --

2all
And I must agree that further details show the advantage of cmd /k over the Shift+Enter.
Noclose.pif is uncomfortable, once displayed I cannot type any other command and to close the window I have to press Alt+Space and choose exit or use mouse.
With cmd /k... - I could type commands afterwards. Closing the window look exactly the same if you had "close afte execution", but could also type exit to close the window.
Therefore I see advantage of cmd /k over noclose.pif but no real disadvantage.

I think that Shift+Enter running as cmd /k (or maybe better %comspec% /k) is a good solution? How about that? It's just proposal, what are your opinions?

BTW: In Windows dir - I have copied noclose.pif to noclose_.pif (for backup)
edited noclose.pif to point at noclose.bat and created noclose.bat as follows:
@rem skip param 1 = /c
@shift
cmd /k %1 %2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8 %9

Parameter 1 is skipped because it is "/C" provided by TC
Instead of cmd you can use command.com or %Comspec%,
depending on what you want to use (eg. XP have both cmd and command).

Now Shift+Enter works in a way that it runs: cmd /k

Try this and say how it works (or how it does not work if there is some problem

)

norfie · Post by *norfie » 2004-03-01, 15:00 UTC

icfu · Post by *icfu » 2004-03-01, 15:13 UTC

There could be such an option to display the checkbox, but it should be only as an option, for I would not like to let it take space of the command line (which is narrow enough - ability to resize command line would be useful, I agree).

TC command line takes about 2/3 of the screen width only, it could be wider, right. The left side is used to display the path so enough room for a small checkbox, really. You could even drop the path display in command row because it is displayed in panel title already and it gets cut anyway when path is too long...

Do not accuse me of being narrow-minded, I could do the same (see Norfie's post). But I don't want to quarrel.
All I am asking for are the arguments - why it should be there.

Well, that sounds completely different than your first

Personally I am against modifying TC to support this

don't you think?

My main argument I told Norfie already:
There are people liking the feature, that's enough. It can be implemented in a way that users which don't like it aren't annoyed so exchanging arguments is only needed to explain people HOW they can profit imho. I see no reason why I should desperately try to convince people having an anti attitude towards features they don't need.

Nice to see that you respect that the feature wish is quite useful at the end. Indeed %comspec% /k is discussed in the thread Lefteous mentioned. I just wonder why it still isn't implemented...

Your workaround works pretty well, thanks.

@norfie:
I will try to understand your point of view at a later time, seems we are talking at cross purposes permanently.

Using batches are workarounds, I mentioned that earlier, too. Editing pif-files (sigh) is not exactly what users of the best file manager out there should be forced to do. Please respect that, thanks.

Icfu

norfie · Post by *norfie » 2004-03-01, 15:51 UTC

Post by *Hacker » 2004-03-01, 16:06 UTC

IGL

What windows versions support %*

Actually, no idea... I saw it posted here somewhere but never tested it myself... let me see... works fine under W2K.

HTH
Roman

icfu · Post by *icfu » 2004-03-01, 16:08 UTC

It's simple: change what you are able to change.

In case you mean me:
That's what I do because TC is not suited for all jobs. I am changing things permanently to make it work for me.

In case you mean ghisler:
He would be able to change that in no time but he is a unique developer who still likes piffing and installing TC to crappy places like c:\wincmd. So only he knows why he needs so long to change the most obvious annoyances.

Yes, there are advantages for "cmd /k" instead of ancient noclose.pif.

Nice to see another convinced user.

But we can not force Christian to do something.

That's pretty obvious when I look at TC each day, some things are nice, some things are bad and some things are so incredibly antique that I'm wondering why I can even live with them.

(Another point there are also disadvantages of "cmd /k" - e.g. compatibility)

There are no disadvantages. cmd /k is just the translation for %comspec% /k when you work under NT...
%comspec% variable is available under all OSes:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rlively/MANUALS/ENV/MSDOS/COMSPEC.HTM

Icfu

Post by *Hacker » 2004-03-01, 16:22 UTC

icfu,

Here is a list with all commands starting from DOS to XP, what OS supports them, their paramters and much more:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rlively/MANUALS/INDEX.HTM

Haven't thought about MEMMAKER for ages...

Who did you quote?

IGL, sorry, didn't see that the thread already grew a second page.

Concerning the rest of the thread - nobody is against features. If someone says "I don't see a point in implementing that" he really means "There are other things I would like to have implemented first". See also http://penn.home.att.net/guy08.htm . I haven't seen anyone protesting against an optional feature (reminds me of the 6.0 beta test when Christian changed the search dialog to consider <space> being an OR... temporarily...)

norfie,

It's simple: change what you are able to change.

Hey, Black Dog's motto!

Roman

norfie · Post by *norfie » 2004-03-01, 16:23 UTC

norfie · Post by *norfie » 2004-03-01, 16:25 UTC