WAD IDE /C does not accept truename of future file

[Steve Fabian]

On my system %LOC is the directory where batch files not necessarily portable to other systems live. I normally make the directory where my .INI files are the default before I start IDE. The command below
IDE /c %loc\newfile.btm
results in IDE error pop-up: "C:\JPSOFT\%loc\newfile.btm contains an incorrect path".
OTOH expanding %LOC (using the command editing keystroke) results in proper operation.
If I interpret it correctly, all the parser needs to do is variable expansion before passing the command line to IDE, same as it does for any other executable

 

[vefatica]

On my system %LOC is the directory where batch files not necessarily portable to other systems live. I normally make the directory where my .INI files are the default before I start IDE. The command below
IDE /c %loc\newfile.btm
results in IDE error pop-up: "C:\JPSOFT\%loc\newfile.btm contains an incorrect path".
OTOH expanding %LOC (using the command editing keystroke) results in proper operation.
If I interpret it correctly, all the parser needs to do is variable expansion before passing the command line to IDE, same as it does for any other executable

IDE is an internal command. But I'd still expect its command line to undergo normal parsing. I can confirm your observations. One ramification is that if you

set newtbm=v:\new.btm
ide /c %newbtm

you get a file named "%newbtm" (ouch!)

 

[vefatica]

IDE is an internal command. But I'd still expect its command line to undergo normal parsing. I can confirm your observations. One ramification is that if you

set newtbm=v:\new.btm
ide /c %newbtm

you get a file named "%newbtm" (ouch!)

And BDEBUGGER acts badly but not quite the same. If I

set newbtm=v:\new.btm
bdebugger /c %newbtm

I get a file named "%newbtm.cmd" (double whammy!).

v:\> set newbtm=v:\new.btm
 
v:\> bdebugger /c %newbtm
 
v:\> dir /k /m *.cmd
2013-05-30  15:50              0  %newbtm.cmd

 

[rconn]

On my system %LOC is the directory where batch files not necessarily portable to other systems live. I normally make the directory where my .INI files are the default before I start IDE. The command below
IDE /c %loc\newfile.btm
results in IDE error pop-up: "C:\JPSOFT\%loc\newfile.btm contains an incorrect path".
OTOH expanding %LOC (using the command editing keystroke) results in proper operation.
If I interpret it correctly, all the parser needs to do is variable expansion before passing the command line to IDE, same as it does for any other executable

WAD - IDE (and BDEBUGGER) do not expand variables (and never have). Like the other delayed processing commands (DO, FOR, etc.) they pass the command line as-is, and it is up to the batch file to do the parsing & expansion.

 

[rconn]

IDE is an internal command. But I'd still expect its command line to undergo normal parsing.

IDE is an external command. But like a number of internal commands, it does not expand variables.

 

[vefatica]

IDE is an external command. But like a number of internal commands, it does not expand variables.

On the contrary!

v:\> which ide
ide is an internal command

And, for IDE.EXE, TCC expands the command line as it always does for externals.

g:\tc15> set newbtm=v:\new.btm
 
g:\tc15> del %newbtm
Deleting V:\new.btm
    1 file deleted
 
g:\tc15> ide.exe /c %newbtm
 
g:\tc15> dir /k /m v:\new*
2013-05-30  19:55              0  new.btm

Why must the internal version of the command (BDEBUGGER, too) be lame?

 

[Steve Fabian]

And in the case of IDE, there is no meaningful 2nd parameter - editing multiple files concurrently with IDE you can see only one at a time, and switching between them is difficult. Regardless, using the hint of invoking the IDE.EXE external directly I executed

alias ide=%@quote[%@path[%_cmdspec]ide.exe]

and now the command which originally was not executed as I thought it would be behaves as I expect it.

 

[rconn]

On the contrary!

v:\> which ide
ide is an internal command

No! The internal IDE just calls the external IDE.EXE in the TCMD installation directory.

Why must the internal version of the command (BDEBUGGER, too) be lame?

For the same reason you wouldn't want the parser to expand variables in DO or FOR before calling the command.

This is absolutely, positively, NOT going to change -- you're 10+ years too late to alter this syntax.

 

[rconn]

And in the case of IDE, there is no meaningful 2nd parameter - editing multiple files concurrently with IDE you can see only one at a time, and switching between them is difficult.

It's difficult to click on another tab?

 

[Steve Fabian]

It is with just the keyboard.

 

[rconn]

It is with just the keyboard.

You can't press Ctrl-Tab?

 

[Steve Fabian]

Something was wrong in my previous tests, neither ctrl-tab, nor alt-tab had worked. I have not used IDE before this week, had been happy with my 16-b editor... I still like it, but cannot use it on this system. Is there a way to set IDE to indent a new line identically to the one above?

 

[forbin]

Something was wrong in my previous tests, neither ctrl-tab, nor alt-tab had worked. I have not used IDE before this week, had been happy with my 16-b editor... I still like it, but cannot use it on this system. Is there a way to set IDE to indent a new line identically to the one above?

16 bit editor? And I thought I was old-school!

Still using Brief perhaps?

 

[Steve Fabian]

YES! With over a hundred home-brew macros... and no crisp to buy CRiSP.