Prev: Utilities - announcement :-)
Next: Screen Refresh failure
From: Jeff Johnson on 15 Apr 2010 17:02
"Karl E. Peterson" <karl(a)exmvps.org> wrote in message
news:eDUPs1N3KHA.1624(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>> also something called a "shell scrap" with extension .shs.
>
> Are those actually executables, or just datafiles that load into some
> other executable?

Dunno. I just remember it being mentioned somewhere else in a discussion
about executable files. They aren't executable in and of themselves,
however. They need shscrap.dll to run, sort of like how a DLL would need
rundll32 to run.


From: Karl E. Peterson on 15 Apr 2010 17:13
Jeff Johnson wrote:
> "Karl E. Peterson" <karl(a)exmvps.org> wrote...
>>> also something called a "shell scrap" with extension .shs.
>>
>> Are those actually executables, or just datafiles that load into some other
>> executable?
>
> Dunno. I just remember it being mentioned somewhere else in a discussion
> about executable files. They aren't executable in and of themselves, however.
> They need shscrap.dll to run, sort of like how a DLL would need rundll32 to
> run.

Huh. Interesting. Well, they seem to be a part of history I may never
see.

--
..NET: It's About Trust!
http://vfred.mvps.org


From: Tony Toews [MVP] on 15 Apr 2010 17:17
Karl E. Peterson <karl(a)exmvps.org> wrote:

>> I''m looking at cleaning up some logic dealing with starting up an exe
>> via Shell. I'm wondering what other file extensions are considered to
>> be executable?
>
>It varies from machine to machine, of course...
>
>C:\>set pathext
>PATHEXT=.COM;.EXE;.BAT;.CMD;.VBS;.VBE;.JS;.JSE;.WSF;.WSH;.MSC

Ah, thanks. I never noticed that. Duhhh! <smile> My system has most
of those with one interesting difference.

PATHEXT=.COM;.EXE;.BAT;.CMD;.VBS;.VBE;.JS;.JSE;.WSF;.WSH;.PSC1

It would appear that PSC1 belongs to Windows PowerShell

>See also: http://vb.mvps.org/samples/Which/

Thanks, Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files
updated see http://www.autofeupdater.com/
Granite Fleet Manager http://www.granitefleet.com/
From: Helmut Meukel on 15 Apr 2010 19:05
"Karl E. Peterson" <karl(a)exmvps.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:eJ$cJ0N3KHA.3580(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Tony Toews [MVP] wrote:
>> I''m looking at cleaning up some logic dealing with starting up an exe
>> via Shell. I'm wondering what other file extensions are considered to
>> be executable?
>
> This is actually the logic I used in that Which sample:
>
> ' Find order of executable file extensions.
> pathext = Environ("PATHEXT")
> If Len(pathext) = 0 Then
> ' Undefined? Up to us!
> pathext = ".COM;.EXE;.BAT;.CMD"
> End If
>
> Before the PATHEXT e-var was introduced, the 4-element default I provided was
> pretty much the defacto (if not hardcoded) standard, I believe.
>
> Note this string also provides the priority order for execution, if two files
> with the same base name exist at the same point in the search path.
>


Hi Karl,

I checked my MS-DOS Version 4 User and Reference Manual.
With DOS 4 the standard was hardcoded: com, exe, bat.
IIRC, .CMD was introduced with NT for use with the NT command
processor cmd.exe.
With NT3.5 the DOS-style command processor COMMAND.COM
was still provided for backward compatibility, but it didn't understand
the NT specific extentions and commands.
I havn't written batch files for ages, so I have no clue if M$ changed
this in later versions (2000, XP, Vista, Win7).

I don't know when PATHEXT was introduced, I believe NT 3.51
had it already. Can't look it up, I still have a machine with a partition
with NT3.51 on it but I had removed NT3.51 from the boot menu
when I upgraded the box with a larger disk not supported by NT3.51.

Helmut.

From: Karl E. Peterson on 15 Apr 2010 20:08
Helmut Meukel wrote:
> "Karl E. Peterson" <karl(a)exmvps.org> schrieb...
>> Tony Toews [MVP] wrote:
>>> I''m looking at cleaning up some logic dealing with starting up an exe
>>> via Shell. I'm wondering what other file extensions are considered to
>>> be executable?
>>
>> This is actually the logic I used in that Which sample:
>>
>> ' Find order of executable file extensions.
>> pathext = Environ("PATHEXT")
>> If Len(pathext) = 0 Then
>> ' Undefined? Up to us!
>> pathext = ".COM;.EXE;.BAT;.CMD"
>> End If
>>
>> Before the PATHEXT e-var was introduced, the 4-element default I provided
>> was pretty much the defacto (if not hardcoded) standard, I believe.
>>
>> Note this string also provides the priority order for execution, if two
>> files with the same base name exist at the same point in the search path.
>
> I checked my MS-DOS Version 4 User and Reference Manual.
> With DOS 4 the standard was hardcoded: com, exe, bat.
> IIRC, .CMD was introduced with NT for use with the NT command
> processor cmd.exe.
> With NT3.5 the DOS-style command processor COMMAND.COM
> was still provided for backward compatibility, but it didn't understand
> the NT specific extentions and commands.
> I havn't written batch files for ages, so I have no clue if M$ changed
> this in later versions (2000, XP, Vista, Win7).
>
> I don't know when PATHEXT was introduced, I believe NT 3.51
> had it already. Can't look it up, I still have a machine with a partition
> with NT3.51 on it but I had removed NT3.51 from the boot menu
> when I upgraded the box with a larger disk not supported by NT3.51.

Yeah, I was thinking it was in Win95, but I just checked and it's not
there. So perhaps tacking on .CMD in cases where the evar isn't
defined may not be the best strategy? That said, I'd bet very little
software written with VB today will ever see such an environment, nor
would such an assumption likely matter if the purpose was to find
executable files on such a system. :-)

--
..NET: It's About Trust!
http://vfred.mvps.org


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Utilities - announcement :-)
Next: Screen Refresh failure