system command

[Dennis Malen]

Mark,

I have tried everyone's suggestions and then some. I used the redirecting 
suggestion, I used your changes in the script, I have done what Ken 
requested. It does not work.

I have also tried the sh -c.

You say it worked on your system flawlessly. What worked! Did it execute the 
file or did you just see a return script.

How do you know it worked. I used all your scripts and it didn't work..

My last suggestion did work if the script was in an executable file. My only 
problem is being able to append to the line so I can put in the variable 
record number. Note, it must append to the line and not go to the next line. 
If anyone knows how to do it, please let me know.

I had to develop a work around after the suggestions did not work. You can't 
blame me for that.

Regards,

Dennis Malen
516.479.5912
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fairlight" <fairlite at fairlite.com>
To: <filepro-list at lists.celestial.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: system command


> Is it just me, or did Dennis Malen say:
>> Mark,
>>
>> Your riight! I owe you an apology. In my haste to get back to you I put /
>> instead of \. That was only on my post.
>
> You didn't seem to be in much of a hurry to get things resolved last night
> when you took off without finishing it and left it up in the air to be
> finished/fixed by whomever actually cared enough to try to help you do 
> YOUR
> job.  Your rationale for being utterly sloppy and technically inaccurate
> holds -no- water with me.
>
>> In any event, I did try what you posted and that did not work either.
>
> Gee, I'm shocked.
>
>> I Do have a suggestion on how to fix it..
>
> If you know how to fix it, JUST DO IT.  Since you're so bright, we don't
> need to know the blow-by-blow on what you think--just sit there and bask 
> in
> all your magnificent brilliance to your heart's content.  Marvel at your
> fantastic suggestions.  I note you're no closer to a solution than when
> you started, despite the fact I posted exact code that executed flawlessly
> under SCO 6.0, fP 5.0.14D4.
>
> But -apparently- you had a -problem-.  Why are you providing suggestions?
> You either know what you're doing, or you don't.  We don't need your
> suggestions for -your- problem.  Hell, I -surely- don't--I already fixed
> the problem and Bob Stockler could verify it for me by checking his system
> if I wanted to trouble him to do so.
>
> If you -want to LEARN-, then fine, ask questions.  But DON'T ask if you're
> going to blithely ignore the answers and waste the time of everyone
> involved who tries to help you (Ken is included here...he's suggested
> sensible things as well).
>
>> What I suggest is to create 2 files that reside in /tmp. File1 is the 
>> first
>> part of the line up to the @rn. File2 is the rest of the line after @rn.
>> Then use:
>>
>> system "/tmp/file1"{@rn{"/tmp/file2"
>>
>> If it all resided in one file in /tmp it works perfectly by using the
>> original text that worked on the unix command line.
>>
>> My problem is breaking up the file. I could have the system command use 
>> ">"
>> and ">>" to append info to a file and then execute that from filepro
>> (system), but that only appends another line. I need it on the same line.
>>
>> What do you think??
>
> You want the long answer, or the short one?  Screw it, JPR and the rest
> hate long replies from me, so you get the short answer:
>
> I -think- (read: it is my OPINION) that you don't have a bloody clue what
> you're doing, you're wasting my (and others') time with half-arsed plans
> that ignore both what you're told and basic common sense, your methodology
> is three quarts shy of being useful for anything but an obfuscation
> contest, you apparently don't know the -very BASICS- of debugging a simple
> SYSTEM call, and your refusal to listen to the reasonable approaches of
> the very people that are (God knows why) trying to help you in spite of
> yourself is the primary cause of your generation of 20-40 reply threads,
> making you quite possibly one of the biggest help-desk-related (as opposed
> to OT or flame-related) time-sinks this list has ever seen since I've been
> on it.
>
> A run-on sentence, I grant.  But I got more or less most of my thoughts
> in there.  For me, that's short.  I -could- have gone on for 20K by now,
> I'm so fed up with your nonsense, so 8 tiny lines should be a forgivable
> length.
>
> I think you also don't read too well.  I said I was -DONE- helping you.
> Why the heck are you asking me what -I- think after I said that?  It
> -was- addressed, "Mark," at the top, so it was ostensibly mostly to
> me--especially since it was in response to my post.  You don't listen to 
> me
> any better in public than you do to me in private, apparently.  Actually,
> you seem not to listen to anyone more than 20% of the time--seemingly
> selectively, no less.  I just have far less patience than some of the
> saints around here.
>
> Which brings me to my -final- thought on the matter:
>
> :0
> * ^From:.*@malen\.com
> /dev/null
>
> Get someone else to explain that to you if you don't comprehend it.  I no
> longer have the patience to do so.  You've thoroughly exhausted it once
> and for all.
>
> mark->
> _______________________________________________
> Filepro-list mailing list
> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
>
>
>