[<<]Message[>>]    [<<]Author[>>]    [<<]Subject        [<<]Thread    

Number   :  3367
Date     :  2002-12-23
Author   :  Kan Yabumoto
Subject  :  Re: Variation on /DA
Size(KB) :  3



Dear Garry:

Hats off. You are completely right. I was very wrong.

A very careful observation by a serious user beat the
designer's vague memory on how the program was designed!!!

I went back and checked the source code carefully.
The /Dxxx group of switches and /Bxxx group of switches
are never mixed. It just happens that when /DA or /BN
is specified (and not cancelled by subsequent switch
settings), the source and destination timestamps are
compared (similarly, /DB or /Bo is specified for the
opposite effect). That is, /DA#10/BN is what it is,
not just /BN as I posted in the second part of my message
on 2002-12-20 (Message # 3361).

Since the wrong info in my message may be viewed as
correct info later by other people, I will delete the
wrong message (maybe after 24 hours).

Let me repeat.

When /DA#10 and /BN are entered, the both switches have
their respective effect on the file action. The pair of
/DB#10 and /Bo behave the same way.

Even though /DA and /BN behave exactly the same and
/DB and /Bo behave exactly the same, they are in
different groups of mutually exclusive set of switches.
Therefore, if you put /DA/DB, then, /DB cancels /DA
and therefore it is the same thing as a plain /DB.
However, if you put /DA/Bo, there is no cancelling
takes place. In effect, this excludes older files (by /DA)
and newer files (by /Bo) and excludes same-age files
(by both), that is, and /DA/Bo (or /DB/BN) combination
is essentially equivalent to /x* (exclude all files).

Actually, there are many pairs of switches which would
eliminate *ALL* files.

Everybody, have a wonderful holiday (if you have one).

Garry, thank you very much for correcting me. I know
you had to take a lot of time to verify the fact and
made your post. I really appreciate your contribution.
If it were not you, we all would have perpetuated the
wrong understanding which originated my careless and
sloppy memory.


Kan Yabumoto
==========================================================

At 2002-12-22 19:19, you wrote:
>Kan,
>
>I'm not sure whether I'm misreading you or whether the behaviour has
>changed but the /da../bn works fine for me (vers 2.80.3).
>
>In the following test, the source contains 9 .bat files with 2 which
>are less than 10 days old. The destination contains 1 file which is a
>newer copy of test.bat. /da#10 selected only the 2 files less than 10
>days old while the /bn skipped copying the older version of test.bat.
>
>D:\temp>xxcopy *.bat f:\test /da#10 /bn
>
>XXCOPY == Pro Edition == Ver 2.80.3 (c)1995-2002 Pixelab, Inc.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>D:\temp\bqtest.bat 161
>D:\temp\test.bat Newer one exists
>----------------------------------------------------------
> Directories processed = 1
> Total data in bytes = 161
> Elapsed time in sec. = 0.01
> Action speed (MB/min) = 0.966
> Files examined = 2
> Files copied = 1
> Exit code = 0 (No error, Successful operation)
>
>If, as you say, the /da#10/bn was equivalent to /bn, there would be 8
>files copied (9 source - 1 older).
>
>Garry



This message if part of XXCOPY's message Archive.
The archive contains all the messages posted at Yahoo!Groups: XXCOPY.