Very Computer

Using CMD.EXE (NT4.0+SP3):

v:\> date /t
Tue 03-31-1998

Tue 3-31-98

FOR does not appear to be parsing what would otherwise be the output of
'date /t'. FOR's parsing of the output of 'time /t' is likewise not what you
might expect:

v:\> time /t
 7:35p

19:35:45

Is this unexpected behavior documented anywhere?

Thanks.

 - Vince
___
   Vincent Fatica
   Syracuse University Mathematics

   http://barnyard.syr.edu/~vefatica/

: Is this unexpected behavior documented anywhere?

I get somewhat different results:

[D:\] date /t
Wed 04/01/1998

Wed 04/01/1998

[D:\] time /t
 2:33

2:33

So I'd guess there must be some system setting involved.  I was surprised
to find leading zero suppression on the times -- that's one more thing
I'll have to look into.

--

I used a slightly different syntax:

for /f "tokens=*" %i in ('date /t') do echo %i

However, I got identical results to the raw command, with the exception that
leading white-space was deleted (as expected). I suspect this is caused by
locale differences, although I did try a variety of different settings on my
machine, and could not get the two results to differ.

--
Tim Hill -- Windows NT MVP

FOR's command output parsing seems to be a rather generic thing ... giving you
exactly what's expected except in these two cases. I'd like to know what's going
on programatically. As little as I can figure it out, it would seem difficult to
duplicate this behavior on purpose.

Here are more, further simplified versions of the tests. At this moment, my
regional settings were MM-dd-yy and hh:mm:ss (so: why no "ss" in (a), why "yyyy"
in (c), why not "04" in (d)?)

a.      v:\> time /t
        19:44

        19:45:02
c.      v:\> date /t
        Wed 04-01-1998

        Wed  4-01-98

 - Vince
___
   Vincent Fatica
   Syracuse University Mathematics

   http://barnyard.syr.edu/~vefatica/