Re: type versus Copy in DOS

["Patricia M. Godfrey" priscamg@xxxxxxxx]

Robert Holmgren wrote:
> Caveat? This is fundamental DOS redirection.

Yes, I understand that. My two points were that
1) I had not known that type (like copy) could redirect; I
thought (because that's all I'd ever heard/read) that it was just
for displaying a file on screen.
2. Harry had said that when he tried to use type to redirect a
file to an lpt port, the file displayed on screen. When I did it,
it didn't. And it printed, which Harry's attempt didn't. So I was
subtly hinting that there was something wrong with whatever Harry
was doing: port mismapped, command mistyped, something.
> Instead of TYPEing or PRINTing to the screen device
> a.k.a. CON[sole] or (loosely) STDOUT, you are TYPEing|PRINTing
> to a storage device (a file) (or to any other device, like a
> hardware printer

Yes, indeed. I tried today commanding
Type con>test.txt
This is a test.
Ctrl-Z
That, of course, is the way one used to write quick and dirty
batch files in the days before multitasking, only I had been
taught to us
copy con filename.ext

But type does it too.
> Redirection shouldn't be unfamiliar: for example, I
> have written dozens of BATch files *for this group* that
> redirect the screen output of programs to the NUL device
Sure, sure. It was just the combo of type + redirection that came
as a surprise to me. Other than >nul, which more or less goes
with the screen output I had associated with type.

--
Patricia M. Godfrey
priscamg@xxxxxxxx