piping / redirecting into a vbs script ?

[R.Wieser]

Hello all,

Using XPsp3.

A few days ago I tried to redirect some commandline output into a vbscript,
which than should be able to read it using "wscript.stdin.readline".

Examples:
echo hello | myvbscript
myvbscript < data.txt

Alas, all I got was an "invalid handle" error. :-(


The thing is, it works well enough when I explicitily specify wscript like
this

echo hello | wscript.exe myvbscript.vbs
wscript.exe myvbscript.vbs < data.txt

IOW, it likely has something to do with how the OS connects the .VBS
extension to the executable needing to run it, and than launches it.

Question:

Does anyone here know what to change in the registry to enable wscript to
recieve the piped / redirected output ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


ps:
I know that I can wrap the vbscript in a few lines of batch script and work
around the problem that way, but thats (work-arounds) not what I'm looking
for.

[VanguardLH]

Post by R.Wieser
Using XPsp3.
A few days ago I tried to redirect some commandline output into a
vbscript, which than should be able to read it using
"wscript.stdin.readline".
echo hello | myvbscript
myvbscript < data.txt
Alas, all I got was an "invalid handle" error. :-(
The thing is, it works well enough when I explicitily specify wscript
like this
echo hello | wscript.exe myvbscript.vbs
wscript.exe myvbscript.vbs < data.txt

In your first example, you specify "myvbscript" instead of
"myvbscript.vbs". Can't have a filetype association (to a handler aka
script interpreter) without an extension on the filename. However, I'm
not sure filetype association works in piped/redirected stdout, but you
could try it. I suspect you must execute a program first to provide
piping or redirection (to have stdin and stdout available by the
program's process). By the time the program (filetype handler) runs,
assuming it does, you've already attempted piping or stdout before the
program has loaded.

echo hello | myvbscript.vbs
myvbscript.vbs < data.txt

Not sure you can pipe or redirect stdin to a file. Has to be to a
program. myvbscript and myscript.vbs are just text files, not
executables. They are text files that something else must interpret.
Looks like you need to pull stdin or push stdout to wscript.exe, a
program, not to a file.

textfile1 | textfile2
Doesn't make sense. No executable to pull stdin or push stdout.

textfile2 < textfile1
Also doesn't make sense. Files don't have stdin or stdout streams.

Somewhere a program must be involved to accept stdin or push stdout.
Files don't push (stdout) or pull (stdin) anything. You read or write
to files, and that's by using some program. There's nothing about a VBS
file. It's just a text file. Need a handler to intrepet them.

As mentioned, you could try specifying the .vbs extension hoping the
filetype handler will pickup the script interpretation, and manage to
intercept stdin or stdout before the interpreter reads the .vbs file.

[R.Wieser]

VanguardLH,

Post by VanguardLH
In your first example, you specify "myvbscript" instead of
"myvbscript.vbs".

Yes, and that was on purpose.

Post by VanguardLH
Can't have a filetype association (to a handler aka
script interpreter) without an extension on the filename.

the myvbscript "filename" as in my first example should have a .vbs
extension just like in my second example ? My 'puter seems to disagree
with you. Its able to, in the first example, start the provided vbscript
just fine.

Post by VanguardLH
However, I'm not sure filetype association works in piped/redirected
stdout, but you could try it.

Ehhh... Whut ?

You're suggesting to me to try what I posted as the problem of this thread ?
Really ?

Post by VanguardLH
I suspect you must execute a program first to provide piping or
redirection (to have stdin and stdout available by the program's
process).

Hmmm ... AFAIKS that would create a different problem : the 'program thats
executed first' could abort due to not finding any input on its stdin, or
lose output because its stdout isn't connected yet.

Post by VanguardLH
By the time the program (filetype handler) runs, assuming it does,
you've already attempted piping or stdout before the program has
loaded.

:-) That is what a (win32) pipe is for : you write stuff to it, and as long
as nobody is reading on the other end it just gets buffered.

Post by VanguardLH
echo hello | myvbscript.vbs
myvbscript.vbs < data.txt

But, that was something I hadn't tried yet (as providing the extension
should, in this case, not make any difference). A quick test just now shows
that it doesn't change anything (no workie).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[VanguardLH]

Post by R.Wieser
VanguardLH,

Post by VanguardLH
In your first example, you specify "myvbscript" instead of
"myvbscript.vbs".

Yes, and that was on purpose.

Post by VanguardLH
Can't have a filetype association (to a handler aka
script interpreter) without an extension on the filename.

the myvbscript "filename" as in my first example should have a .vbs
extension just like in my second example ? My 'puter seems to disagree
with you. Its able to, in the first example, start the provided vbscript
just fine.

For your first example, you said "all I got was an invalid handle"
error. Your first example errored when you posted, but now it works?

Post by R.Wieser

Post by VanguardLH
However, I'm not sure filetype association works in piped/redirected
stdout, but you could try it.

Ehhh... Whut ?
You're suggesting to me to try what I posted as the problem of this thread ?
Really ?

I suggested NOT specifing just files. Specify a program. Whether
piping or redirection, WHAT are you piping or redirecting? Stdin or
stdout, not the actual file. Something you run has to do the read
(stdin) or do the write (stdout).

Think about it: when you run a console program, its stdout is writing to
the console window. Instead you pipe that program's stdout into a file.
The program is still doing the writing.

Post by R.Wieser

Post by VanguardLH
I suspect you must execute a program first to provide piping or
redirection (to have stdin and stdout available by the program's
process).

Hmmm ... AFAIKS that would create a different problem : the 'program thats
executed first' could abort due to not finding any input on its stdin, or
lose output because its stdout isn't connected yet.

Files don't have stdin or stdout streams. They're just data structures
in a file system, not programs.

Post by R.Wieser

Post by VanguardLH
By the time the program (filetype handler) runs, assuming it does,
you've already attempted piping or stdout before the program has
loaded.

:-) That is what a (win32) pipe is for : you write stuff to it, and as long
as nobody is reading on the other end it just gets buffered.

But files don't have stdin or stdout streams. Something you run does
the read or write.

Post by R.Wieser

Post by VanguardLH
echo hello | myvbscript.vbs
myvbscript.vbs < data.txt

But, that was something I hadn't tried yet (as providing the extension
should, in this case, not make any difference). A quick test just now shows
that it doesn't change anything (no workie).

That's why I said that you really need to specify an executable program
that can do stdin (read) and stdout (write). I expected attempting to
get a file to write or read would not work.

stdin, stdout, and stderr are global constant pointers for standard
streams for input, output, and error output. Programs have those
streams. Files do not. You cannot pipe the content of one file into
another file. You can pipe the stdout of one program into the stdin of
another program, or redirect a program's stdout to write into a file.

I know you don't like when something doesn't work they way you expect,
or think it should be, but files don't have stdin or stdout streams.
You already figured out the solution, so why not use it?

[R.Wieser]

VanguardLH,

Post by VanguardLH
For your first example, you said "all I got was an invalid handle"
error. Your first example errored when you posted, but now it works?

If you *throw the context in which both where said away* than you are right.

Not so much if you keep it in context though.

But I have no wish to /again/ try to fight you to make you understand what
/should/ have been obvious.

Goodby kid.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[VanguardLH]

Post by R.Wieser
VanguardLH,

Post by VanguardLH
For your first example, you said "all I got was an invalid handle"
error. Your first example errored when you posted, but now it works?

If you *throw the context in which both where said away* than you are right.
Not so much if you keep it in context though.
But I have no wish to /again/ try to fight you to make you understand what
/should/ have been obvious.
Goodby kid.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Ah, yes, your moving target to your respondents. Troll ploy.

[R.Wieser]

VanguardLH,

Post by VanguardLH
Ah, yes, your moving target to your respondents. Troll ploy.

Ah yes, the "if I don't get it its your fault" troll ploy.

I think there is *no* way you can tell me the subject/context of either
post. And a hint : it isn't the script.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 11:55:36 +0200

Post by R.Wieser
VanguardLH,

Post by VanguardLH
Ah, yes, your moving target to your respondents. Troll ploy.

Ah yes, the "if I don't get it its your fault" troll ploy.
I think there is *no* way you can tell me the subject/context of either
post. And a hint : it isn't the script.

Are you looking for help or a fight? Just asking, I offer neither.

[Newyana2]

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
Are you looking for help or a fight? Just asking, I offer neither.

That's just Rudy's style. When he says, "Screw you, little boy,
you're less than a fly", he means, "I'm not so sure you're right
on that point."

Rudy enjoy's arguing, so he comes up with unsolvable puzzles
and then criticizes the answers. He'll ask things like, "I opened a
program and it instantly closed, yet the other shortcut works fine.
But where did my baloney sandwich go?" Then people make the
mistake of trying to help him sort out faulty shortcuts because,
well, who doesn't love a puzzle? :)

[VanguardLH]

Post by Newyana2

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
Are you looking for help or a fight? Just asking, I offer neither.

That's just Rudy's style. When he says, "Screw you, little boy,
you're less than a fly", he means, "I'm not so sure you're right
on that point."
Rudy enjoy's arguing, so he comes up with unsolvable puzzles
and then criticizes the answers. He'll ask things like, "I opened a
program and it instantly closed, yet the other shortcut works fine.
But where did my baloney sandwich go?" Then people make the
mistake of trying to help him sort out faulty shortcuts because,
well, who doesn't love a puzzle? :)

He already figured out a workaround, the real-world solution, but wants
the world to work how he wants or expects. To hell with why things work
the way they do. It's gotta be his way.

In this case, he wants files themselves to do reads and writes of other
files. He wants data objects aka files to be programs themselves, so
files can read and write, and can do anything else he wants. He has
watched too many Marvel and Harry Potter movies. Logic interferes with
his obstreperous temperament.

[Frank Slootweg]

[Disclaimer: I don't know the first thing about VBScript, but have a
brain and am not afraid to use it.]

VanguardLH <***@nguard.lh> wrote:
[...]

Post by VanguardLH
In this case, he wants files themselves to do reads and writes of other
files. He wants data objects aka files to be programs themselves, so
files can read and write, and can do anything else he wants. He has
watched too many Marvel and Harry Potter movies. Logic interferes with
his obstreperous temperament.

FTR, AFAICT he does *not* "want files themselves to do reads and
writes of other files". (I think) That's your misunderstanding. The
'files' are not "data objects", but a VBScript (myvbscript[.vbs]), i.e.
it *is* a program. That's clear by the fact that the .vbs file *is*
executed.

I don't know how a .vbs file gets executed, but I assume it works like
.exe and .bat files that the command interpreter (cmd.exe) sees that
myvbscript is actually myvbscript.vbs and hence calls wscript.exe to
execute myvbscript.vbs.

Rudy's problem is that he can't imagine that someone interprets his
posts in any other way than he does. If there's another interpretation,
it's the other guy's fault and things go downhill from there.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On 24 Apr 2024 12:46:12 GMT

Post by Frank Slootweg
[Disclaimer: I don't know the first thing about VBScript, but have a
brain and am not afraid to use it.]
[...]

Post by VanguardLH
In this case, he wants files themselves to do reads and writes of other
files. He wants data objects aka files to be programs themselves, so
files can read and write, and can do anything else he wants. He has
watched too many Marvel and Harry Potter movies. Logic interferes with
his obstreperous temperament.

FTR, AFAICT he does *not* "want files themselves to do reads and
writes of other files". (I think) That's your misunderstanding. The
'files' are not "data objects", but a VBScript (myvbscript[.vbs]), i.e.
it *is* a program. That's clear by the fact that the .vbs file *is*
executed.
I don't know how a .vbs file gets executed, but I assume it works like
.exe and .bat files that the command interpreter (cmd.exe) sees that
myvbscript is actually myvbscript.vbs and hence calls wscript.exe to
execute myvbscript.vbs.

You'd be wrong there; 'anyfile.vbs' (or any other 'thing' gets dealt with
by Windows 'associations'); anything ending with '.vbs' would
normally be associated with 'wscript.exe'

'.exe' & '.bat' files (again, normally) get sent to the command interpreter
and are then either executed (if EXE by loading and finding the start
point) or seen as BATCH and interpreted by the command (or should I say
CMD) parser.

Post by Frank Slootweg
Rudy's problem is that he can't imagine that someone interprets his
posts in any other way than he does. If there's another interpretation,
it's the other guy's fault and things go downhill from there.

He does seem to want to specify his 'problem' very tightly but then not
accept any workaround suggested. It's pointless trying to help ISTM.

[R.Wieser]

John,

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
'.exe' & '.bat' files (again, normally) get sent to the command interpreter

Even the executables which depend on a GUI ? <whistle> :-)

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
He does seem to want to specify his 'problem' very tightly but then not
accept any workaround suggested.

Lol. I get offered work-arounds when I say *NOT* to want them, and even
though I mention that I already found a working one myself.

As for my "very tightly" ? Yeah, thats /exactly/ because people refuse to
listen. The less (background) information I provide, the less chance they
go off on a tangent.

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
It's pointless trying to help ISTM.

Try to answer the question and I wil thank you. Pay me disrespect by keep
pushing what I specifically mentioned I don't want or need and you won't get
my respect either.

Or, to put it more bluntly : As long as someone refuses to work inside the
boundaries I set than their "trying to help" is nothing more than them lying
to themselves and wasting my time.

... or maybe you want the same treatment as I offered Newyana2 I just say
"thank you" - regardless of what you posted is in any way usable.


Now I think of it, that would likely put a hard stop to all of the
not-answering-the question crap ... I might even try it.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On 24 Apr 2024 12:46:12 GMT

Post by Frank Slootweg
[Disclaimer: I don't know the first thing about VBScript, but have a
brain and am not afraid to use it.]
[...]

Post by VanguardLH
In this case, he wants files themselves to do reads and writes of other
files. He wants data objects aka files to be programs themselves, so
files can read and write, and can do anything else he wants. He has
watched too many Marvel and Harry Potter movies. Logic interferes with
his obstreperous temperament.

FTR, AFAICT he does *not* "want files themselves to do reads and
writes of other files". (I think) That's your misunderstanding. The
'files' are not "data objects", but a VBScript (myvbscript[.vbs]), i.e.
it *is* a program. That's clear by the fact that the .vbs file *is*
executed.
I don't know how a .vbs file gets executed, but I assume it works like
.exe and .bat files that the command interpreter (cmd.exe) sees that
myvbscript is actually myvbscript.vbs and hence calls wscript.exe to
execute myvbscript.vbs.

You'd be wrong there; 'anyfile.vbs' (or any other 'thing' gets dealt with
by Windows 'associations'); anything ending with '.vbs' would
normally be associated with 'wscript.exe'

Of course, but the point is that in Rudy's first examples, he doesn't
use myvbscript.vbs, but just myvbscript. So *something* must translate
myvbscript to myvbscript.vbs, *before* file associations, i.e.
associating .vbs with wscript.exe, come into play. My guess was/is that
the 'command interpreter' (Rudy doesn't say how he invokes his commands)
does the ttranlation from myvbscript to myvbscript.vbs.

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
'.exe' & '.bat' files (again, normally) get sent to the command interpreter
and are then either executed (if EXE by loading and finding the start
point) or seen as BATCH and interpreted by the command (or should I say
CMD) parser.

Again, first something has to translate from <filename> to
<filename>.exe or <filename>.bat. I think (for example) cmd.exe does
that translation.

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John

Post by Frank Slootweg
Rudy's problem is that he can't imagine that someone interprets his
posts in any other way than he does. If there's another interpretation,
it's the other guy's fault and things go downhill from there.

He does seem to want to specify his 'problem' very tightly but then not
accept any workaround suggested. It's pointless trying to help ISTM.

[R.Wieser]

Frank,

My guess was/is that the 'command interpreter' (Rudy doesn't say
how he invokes his commands)

I didn't ?

[quote first post]
I tried to redirect some commandline output into a vbscript
[/quote]

Besides that, the "echo hello | ..." and "... < data.txt" should have been
dead give-aways.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by R.Wieser
Frank,

My guess was/is that the 'command interpreter' (Rudy doesn't say
how he invokes his commands)

I didn't ?
[quote first post]
I tried to redirect some commandline output into a vbscript
[/quote]
Besides that, the "echo hello | ..." and "... < data.txt" should have been
dead give-aways.

As you didn't specifically say you invoked from cmd.exe, I said
'command interpreter', i.e. the general term. That's all.

Your accusive and defensive response just confirms what others and I
have been saying about your style of communication ("Rudy's problem is
that he can't imagine that someone interprets his posts in any other way
than he does.").

FTR, in that subthread (the context of which you fully snipped :-(), I
was actually supporting your 'side' in the context of VanguardLH's
comments. But that was whooshed over, because you had to find fault
*somewhere*! :-(

EOT.

[R.Wieser]

Frank,

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by R.Wieser

My guess was/is that the 'command interpreter' (Rudy doesn't say
how he invokes his commands)

I didn't ?
[quote first post]
I tried to redirect some commandline output into a vbscript
[/quote]
Besides that, the "echo hello | ..." and "... < data.txt" should have been
dead give-aways.

As you didn't specifically say you invoked from cmd.exe, I said
'command interpreter', i.e. the general term. That's all.

(I quoted everything. Otherwise you will just complain I snipped important
stuff)

Really ?

You said : "Rudy doesn't say how he invokes his commands".

And I responded with quoting from my first post. So yes, I did say it.
There was nothing to guess at.

Post by Frank Slootweg
just confirms what others and I have been saying about your style
of communication ("Rudy's problem is that he can't imagine that
someone interprets his posts in any other way than he does.").

To which I wrote a response - which you have not wanted to quote or
even refer to, as it doesn't fit your "you're /bad/, and you father reeks of
elderberries" narrative. One in which condemned the idiots who post what I
explicitily mentioned *NOT* to want - wasting their and my time.

But I assume you think that as someone who's asking I'm not allowed to (try
to) limit the type/scope of responses. The only thing I'm allowed to do is
to say "thank you", no matter what gets posted.

Well, "thank you"

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by R.Wieser
Frank,

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by R.Wieser

My guess was/is that the 'command interpreter' (Rudy doesn't say
how he invokes his commands)

I didn't ?
[quote first post]
I tried to redirect some commandline output into a vbscript
[/quote]
Besides that, the "echo hello | ..." and "... < data.txt" should have
been dead give-aways.

As you didn't specifically say you invoked from cmd.exe, I said
'command interpreter', i.e. the general term. That's all.

(I quoted everything. Otherwise you will just complain I snipped important
stuff)
Really ?
You said : "Rudy doesn't say how he invokes his commands".
And I responded with quoting from my first post. So yes, I did say it.
There was nothing to guess at.

Sigh!

Not that, despite your aggressive, confrontational, insulting
communication style, you still deserve a response, but saying
"commandline" is not unambiguous. You may think it is, but it isn't.
That why I said what I said. Like I said "... That's all.". Time to get
over it.

[More of the same communication 'style' deleted. There's just no point.]

[R.Wieser]

Frank,

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by R.Wieser

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by R.Wieser

My guess was/is that the 'command interpreter' (Rudy doesn't say
how he invokes his commands)

I didn't ?
[quote first post]
I tried to redirect some commandline output into a vbscript
[/quote]
Besides that, the "echo hello | ..." and "... < data.txt" should have
been dead give-aways.

As you didn't specifically say you invoked from cmd.exe, I said
'command interpreter', i.e. the general term. That's all.

(I quoted everything. Otherwise you will just complain I snipped important
stuff)
Really ?
You said : "Rudy doesn't say how he invokes his commands".
And I responded with quoting from my first post. So yes, I did say it.
There was nothing to guess at.

Sigh!
Not that, despite your aggressive, confrontational, insulting
communication style, you still deserve a response, but saying
"commandline" is not unambiguous.

So, now you changing your tune frm "he didn't say" to "he didn't specify the
exact one he used" ? Great going kid. Really, great going.

A bit obvious though.

But, if you think its ambiguous you can /ofcourse/ tell us *how* its
ambiguous - and follow that up with how its relevant.

Although I'm sure you can come up with the former, you will be hard-pressed
with the latter - in regard to the current subject ofcourse. Take a wild
guess how I know that.

Post by Frank Slootweg
That why I said what I said. Like I said "... That's all.". Time to
get over it.

"get over" that you claim untrue stuff about what I said ? While you even
refuse to acknowledge that you made a mistake there ? Yeah, I think that
would make your life a bit/lot easier, wouldn't it ?

I suggest you "get over" the idea that you can make mistakes and than "make
them go away" by simply ignoring them when they are pointed out to you. It
doesn't work that way.

You wanted to talk about "insulting" ? Than don't try to demand that I
ignore your mistakes toward me - while you still try to pick upon the ones
you think I made.

Regards, and "thank you"
Rudy Wieser

[Frank Slootweg]

R.Wieser <***@is.invalid> wrote:

[More of the same aggro and compulsive arguing deleted.]

(Quite a bit) Earlier I said "EOT." and you said "Goodbye Frank.".

Let's stick to that. (So I won't respond to your other two new
responses either.)

Not to trigger more (non-)'discussion', just a summary of my view on
events:

I only called you on the logical fallacy of your demand to Newyana2 to
"back up" his "unsolvable puzzles" statement.

All other responses were triggered by *your* responses to my responses
to *others* (VanguardLH and John).

As implied by my 'Disclaimer:', I never addressed the problem you
described in your OP. (So any complaints on that are misplaced.)

Everyone in this thread has similar opinions as I do, on your
aggressive, confrontational, insulting communication style. There's a
lesson in there.

(Also) Enroll in Usenet 101 and Reading for Comprehension 101.

"Goodbye Rudy."

[R.Wieser]

Frank,

Post by Frank Slootweg
I only called you on the logical fallacy of your demand to Newyana2
to "back up" his "unsolvable puzzles" statement.

And I called bullshit on that "logical fallacy" of yours - and explained
why. I have not seen you respond to that. Another example of your "if I
ignore it hard enough it never happened" methodology.

Post by Frank Slootweg
All other responses were triggered by *your* responses to my responses
to *others* (VanguardLH and John).

Ah yes, when you specifically talk about me than any response of mine is
*ofcourse* on my head, and /not at all/ provoked by you.

Examples of you talking about me :

[quote]
My guess was/is that the 'command interpreter' (Rudy doesn't say
how he invokes his commands)
[/quote]

[quote]
Rudy's problem is that he can't imagine that someone interprets his
posts in any other way than he does. If there's another interpretation,
it's the other guy's fault and things go downhill from there.
[/quote]

[quote]
Nope, he 'discovered' no such thing. He specified the .vbs extension
*and* he added wscript.exe to interpret the .vbs file.
[/quote]

The below one was actualy directed at me, even though I wasn't talking at
you. IOW, *you* butted into my talking to /someone else/. Yes indeed,
exactly that which you now try to accuse me of. Hypocricy much ?

[quote]
If you think Newyana2 needs to "back up" his "unsolvable puzzles"
statement, you may want to enroll in Logic 101.
[/quote]

Post by Frank Slootweg
As implied by my 'Disclaimer:', I never addressed the problem you
described in your OP.

True, you didn't addres the problem I presented. Noone here did. But you
talked about everything I had posted about it. As prrof see above.

Post by Frank Slootweg
(So any complaints on that are misplaced.)

Did I make any ? Can you quote one ? No, I didn't think so.

And do yourself a favour : before you quote one do check if the complaint
was about you. So, no "people that post work-arounds when I explicitily
said not to want them" quoting.

Post by Frank Slootweg
(Also) Enroll in Usenet 101 and Reading for Comprehension 101.

As you have not posted any reasoning and/or underbuilding for those
suggestions I'm going to efectivily ignore them as the hot air they are.

But hey, if you want to be respectfully adresed than you only have to be
respectfull yourself. And that includes responding when some asks you to
clarify yourself. And ofcourse acknowledge and fix mistakes you make.

If you cannot get yourself to do that than you should not complain about the
inevitable result. Thats also "usenet 101"

Post by Frank Slootweg
"Goodbye Rudy."

:-) "Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Flattery"

But yes, I think its a good idea, seeing how you refuse to respond to quoted
and underbuild "are you sure about that ?" posts of mine.

Goodbye frank.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[Frank Slootweg]

[As this one is simple, let's get it out of the way:]

Post by R.Wieser
Frank,

Post by Frank Slootweg
I only called you on the logical fallacy of your demand to Newyana2
to "back up" his "unsolvable puzzles" statement.

And I called bullshit on that "logical fallacy" of yours - and explained
why. I have not seen you respond to that. Another example of your "if I
ignore it hard enough it never happened" methodology.

That was after my hints dropped dead on the floor. But let's rewind:

Logic 101 says "One can not prove a negative.". In this case: One can
not prove a puzzle is unsolvable, hence Newyana2 does not have to prove
anything.

In your response, you reworded things a bit, but that did not change
the essence, so I replied "Sorry, same logical fallacy.".

Case closed.

[...]

[VanguardLH]

Post by Frank Slootweg
FTR, AFAICT he does *not* "want files themselves to do reads and
writes of other files". (I think) That's your misunderstanding. The
'files' are not "data objects", but a VBScript (myvbscript[.vbs]), i.e.
it *is* a program. That's clear by the fact that the .vbs file *is*
executed.

VBScript is an interpreted language, not a compiled one.

.vbs are text files. That they contain scripts is only useful when they
are read by an interpreter. .vbs files are not executable. They are
read by an interpreter that does the code execution. You can compile
.vbs files, like after porting to VB or VB.NET and then *compiling* the
script) into .exe files, but then they are .exe files, not .vbs text
files describing a script.

He wants to pipe or redirect files into files, like:

textfile1 | textfile2
textfile2 < textfile1

He discovered the solution was to specify the .vbs extension on the
filename to get that handler to read the text file to run the script.

Post by Frank Slootweg
I don't know how a .vbs file gets executed, but I assume it works like
.exe and .bat files that the command interpreter (cmd.exe) sees that
myvbscript is actually myvbscript.vbs and hence calls wscript.exe to
execute myvbscript.vbs.

Batch (.bat) files are just text files, too. They are not executable.
They must get interpreted by cmd.exe. Likewise, the filetype
association on .bat has the text file read into command shell to do the
interpretation of the script.

Personally I wouldn't rely on filetype association hoping the handler
gets loaded at the right time to load the text file to run the script
and generate the stdin, stdout, and stderr streams.

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by VanguardLH

Post by Frank Slootweg
FTR, AFAICT he does *not* "want files themselves to do reads and
writes of other files". (I think) That's your misunderstanding. The
'files' are not "data objects", but a VBScript (myvbscript[.vbs]), i.e.
it *is* a program. That's clear by the fact that the .vbs file *is*
executed.

[Series of 'Duh!'s and misinterpretations deleted.]

See my response to John. It's not about filetype association, etc.,
but about what translates <filename> to <filename>.vbs *before* filetype
association takes places, i.e. similar to (*not* 'the same as') how
<filename> gets translated to <filename>.bat.

Post by VanguardLH
textfile1 | textfile2
textfile2 < textfile1
He discovered the solution was to specify the .vbs extension on the
filename to get that handler to read the text file to run the script.

Nope, he 'discovered' no such thing. He specified the .vbs extension
*and* he added wscript.exe to interpret the .vbs file.

One of the many problems resulting from his snipping of context.

[R.Wieser]

Frank,

It's not about filetype association, etc., but about what translates
<filename> to <filename>.vbs *before* filetype association takes places,

Only for you and John. For me its absolutily irrelevant.

If you think its causing the stated problem than just add the ".vbs"
extension to the two lines in my first example see if it changes anything.

Newsflash : It doesn't.

Post by VanguardLH
He discovered the solution was to specify the .vbs extension on the
filename to get that handler to read the text file to run the script.

Nope, he 'discovered' no such thing. He specified the .vbs extension
*and* he added wscript.exe to interpret the .vbs file.

He's quite the moron, isn't he ? Still enjoying yourself trying to get him
to even just fully read what is infront of his nose (let alone correctly
interpret it) ? Yeah, me neither.

But "no" to the "he added wscript.exe to interpret the .vbs file" part.

The "wscript.exe" and than the ".vbs" extension can be removed (see the
first example). The vbscript gets run (interpreted by wscript.exe) in all
cases.

Which means that the reason I, in the second example, added "wscript.exe"
must have been quite different.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by R.Wieser
Frank,

It's not about filetype association, etc., but about what translates
<filename> to <filename>.vbs *before* filetype association takes places,

Only for you and John. For me its absolutily irrelevant.

Incorrect interpretation. It was (and is) never a problem for *me*
either, but as John and VanguardLH brought it up, I addressed it.

Moral: It's not your thread. Posters are free to respond to anything
any poster said.

Post by R.Wieser
If you think its causing the stated problem than just add the ".vbs"
extension to the two lines in my first example see if it changes anything.
Newsflash : It doesn't.

Newsflash: *I* never said or implied it did.

[...]

[R.Wieser]

Frank,

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by R.Wieser

It's not about filetype association, etc., but about what
translates <filename> to <filename>.vbs *before* filetype
association takes places,

Only for you and John. For me its absolutily irrelevant.

Incorrect interpretation. It was (and is) never a problem for *me*
either, but as John and VanguardLH brought it up, I addressed it.

Incorrect interpretation yourself : Who said anything about a /problem/ ?

Post by Frank Slootweg
Moral: It's not your thread. Posters are free to respond to
anything any poster said.

Second Incorrect interpretation : I have not said anything to the contrary.

Funny how you want to teach me a lesson, only to have it thrown back into
your face. Maybe pay more attention next time ?

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by R.Wieser
If you think its causing the stated problem than just add the ".vbs"
extension to the two lines in my first example see if it changes anything.
Newsflash : It doesn't.

Newsflash: *I* never said or implied it did.

Third Incorrect interpretation : I did not say or imply that either.

Instead I gave you a suggestion to possibly/likely cut that discussion of
you two short.

Regards, and "thank you"
Rudy Wieser.

[R.Wieser]

Frank,

I almost forgot. You mis-quoted something yourself.

Or should I just be "insulting, agressive and confrontational" by saying
that you just snipped me pointing out another mistake of yours (in an

Post by R.Wieser

Post by Frank Slootweg
Nope, he 'discovered' no such thing. He specified the .vbs extension
*and* he added wscript.exe to interpret the .vbs file.

...

Post by R.Wieser
But "no" to the "he added wscript.exe to interpret the .vbs file" part.

[followed by an explanation to why not]

Got nothing to say to either the mistake or the snipping ?

Shucks, I could not have forseen that you would try to play the "one rule
for me, another one for you" game. No, really. No way. /s

Regards, and "thank you"
Rudy Wieser

[R.Wieser]

Vanguard,

Post by VanguardLH
textfile1 | textfile2
textfile2 < textfile1

Lol.

Just keep claiming that whatever bounces between your ears is what what I
actually ment - even if it looks in no way like the two examples I provided.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

And oh yeah, "thank you"

[R.Wieser]

Newyana2,

Post by Newyana2
That's just Rudy's style. When he says, "Screw you, little boy,
you're less than a fly", he means, "I'm not so sure you're right
on that point."

I can't remember having ever said (or ment) the former, and in regard to
Vanguard I'm past the latter. I tried that several times, but it didn't
work. (Proof on file. Literally)

Post by Newyana2
Rudy enjoy's arguing, so he comes up with unsolvable puzzles
and then criticizes the answers.

"unsolvable puzzles" ? You know that for a fact ? In that case I can stop
trying to find a solution to it and put it to rest. You /do/ have something
to back that up ofcourse.

But thank you for the praise - it means that went thru all possibilities in
regard to a solution myself first, and there are none other to check. IOW,
I did/do my own homework first, before trying to involve others. Isn't that
what a good question-poster is supposed to do ?

"come up with" ? Are you seriously trying to make it sound as if I spend
my days manufacturing such "unsolvable puzzles" ? - just because you can't
answer my questions ? Get a reality check please.

But, I'm going to throw you a bone. What I was doing when I ran into the
stated problem is trying to un-double the output of "sort". Like this:
"<in.txt sort | undouble > out.txt". With "out.txt" receiving the unique
lines of "in.txt".

Now if that "undouble" would have been an .EXE or even a .BAT file the input
redirection works. But not for a .VBS file. :-|

"criticizes the answers" ? Are you trying to tell me that I am not allowed
to point out how some of the suggestions would create their own problems ?

And I'm assuming that with those "answers" you're *not* talking about all
those posted work-arounds - where I explicitily mentioned I don't want (or
need) them.

But I will try to remember that, the next time you post an answer, I should
just say "thank you" and leave it at that - no matter the quality of it.
Down side : you won't learn of any mistakes you made. But if that is what
you want ...

Post by Newyana2
Then people make the mistake of trying to help him sort out faulty
shortcuts because, well, who doesn't love a puzzle? :)

:-) Seeing that there are industries who thrive on creating jigsaw, sudoku,
crossword, rope and a plethora of other puzzles - lets not forget those
"escape rooms" - I would say there are a /lot/ of them.

Besides all those engeneers and programmers who's job it is to do just that
ofcourse.

But... eh, "faulty shortcuts" ? They are "faulty" how ? As implemented by
MS ? On my machine ? If the former than my queste ends. If the latter I
could use some info about what they are supposed to look like.

Heck, maybe you /do/ have the information I'm looking for. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by R.Wieser
Newyana2,

[...]

Post by R.Wieser

Post by Newyana2
Rudy enjoy's arguing, so he comes up with unsolvable puzzles
and then criticizes the answers.

"unsolvable puzzles" ? You know that for a fact ? In that case I can stop
trying to find a solution to it and put it to rest. You /do/ have something
to back that up ofcourse.

If you think Newyana2 needs to "back up" his "unsolvable puzzles"
statement, you may want to enroll in Logic 101.

I've noted you tend to emit this logical fallacy when you get too
worked up (which is a quite common occurence). There's a lesson in
there.

[R.Wieser]

Frank,

Post by Frank Slootweg
If you think Newyana2 needs to "back up" his "unsolvable puzzles"
statement, you may want to enroll in Logic 101.

:-) I did not expect him to prove it. I'm not /that/ daft.

But I think I may expect him to be able to explain /why/ he thinks its
unsolvable. Otherwise his classification isn't worth the ink its written
with.

And pardon me, I've more than once encountered people who use similar claims
just because they either could not grasp the problem, or didn't actually
want to try to solve it. You know, <whining>Its too *hard*</whining>.

Post by Frank Slootweg
I've noted you tend to emit this logical fallacy when you get
too worked up (which is a quite common occurence). There's a
lesson in there.

I disagree. See above.

But, if you can quote something specific we could always discuss it. For
some odd reason I've got very little problem with being proven wrong.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by R.Wieser
Frank,

Post by Frank Slootweg
If you think Newyana2 needs to "back up" his "unsolvable puzzles"
statement, you may want to enroll in Logic 101.

:-) I did not expect him to prove it. I'm not /that/ daft.

<whoosh!>

I think somebody complained about people not reading what was written,
but going off on a tangent. Who was that again!?

Post by R.Wieser
But I think I may expect him to be able to explain /why/ he thinks its
unsolvable. Otherwise his classification isn't worth the ink its written
with.

Sorry, same logical fallacy.

Post by R.Wieser
And pardon me, I've more than once encountered people who use similar claims
just because they either could not grasp the problem, or didn't actually
want to try to solve it. You know, <whining>Its too *hard*</whining>.

I vaguely remember mentioning it's always the other guy's fault.

Post by R.Wieser

Post by Frank Slootweg
I've noted you tend to emit this logical fallacy when you get
too worked up (which is a quite common occurence). There's a
lesson in there.

I disagree. See above.

Another locigal fallacy.

Post by R.Wieser
But, if you can quote something specific we could always discuss it. For
some odd reason I've got very little problem with being proven wrong.

Yep, and I've a 300-metre steel tower in Paris for sale, real cheap,
honest!

[R.Wieser]

Frank,

Post by Frank Slootweg
<whoosh!>
I think somebody complained about people not reading what was
written, but going off on a tangent.

You *might* want to explain that to me.

Post by Frank Slootweg
Sorry, same logical fallacy.

You are ofcourse able to explain /why/ you think so.

... Or is that another "logical fallacy" to you ?

Post by Frank Slootweg
I vaguely remember mentioning it's always the other guy's fault.

I see you complain a lot, but not bringing a sliver of information forward
to my stated problem.

But, feel free how *your* whining and not even /trying/ to respond to (let
alone answer) the question is actually helpfull to me.

Post by Frank Slootweg
Another locigal fallacy.

Ofcourse, just keep using the same big words, but not once support them by
anything. Makes you sound like someone reely intulligant.

Goodbye Frank. And "thank you"

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On 24 Apr 2024 17:41:43 GMT
Frank Slootweg <***@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

[]

Post by Frank Slootweg
Yep, and I've a 300-metre steel tower in Paris for sale, real cheap,
honest!

Don't buy it! the Eiffel tower is made of wrought iron.

[R.Wieser]

John,

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
Are you looking for help or a fight?

I'm looking for the former, but alas, got the latter.

And as I'm absolutily not religious I don't tend to offer the other cheek.

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
Just asking,

I've got no problem with that.

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
I offer neither.

D*mn - no fight *and* no help ? What is the world coming too ? :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser