[Date Prev][Date Next][Subject Prev][Subject Next][
Re: New copy and paste function
- Subject: Re: New copy and paste function
- From: "Robert Holmgren" holmgren@xxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 17:57:55 -0500
** Reply to message from cld@xxxxxxxx (Carl Distefano) on Sat, 8 Nov 2003
> I wonder if Paul's problem is not whether the .VBS extension is
> properly associated with Wscript or Cscript, but rather whether --
> improbable as it seems -- the file association between .VBS and the
> VBScript engine was lost. That's what the error message says,
> anyway: "There is no script engine for file extension `.VBS'."
I don't think so: the error he gets is exactly the error returned by CSCRIPT
if .VBS extension isn't associated with WSCRIPT (or CSCRIPT -- doesn't matter
which). I mean, first you ASSOCiate the extension with a file type, and then
you link the file type (aka FTYPE) to an executable. Anyway, sure, specifying
(what M$ calls) "the engine" (VBS or VBScript) works around the error (broken
association), but means he (or we) would have to revise U2 in the several
places it uses WSH. Better to simply reestablish the association. Or recode
U2 at our end to always specify "the engine". Which, I suppose, we could do
... but what other "engine" is going to be using a .VBS extension? And why?
If it were Perl, it would have a .PL extension, etc. etc. VBS _means_
VBScript, as JS means JScript -- especially in the context of this particular
executable! It's tautological and dumb, IMO.