* Originally by: Mike Tripp (1:382/61), 05 Aug 03 20:14.

Hello, Bob...

 MT> I'm sure it is just your choice of semantics, but this still grates 
 MT> like fingernails on the chalkboard to me.  If I had a batch file that 
 MT> said:

 MT> ren *.* *.tmp
 MT> del *.tmp

 MT> and I found out that the second step only deleted that files that 
 MT> were already named *.tmp before invoking the batch and not the ones 
 MT> that were just renamed *.tmp during the batch, then I would consider 
 MT> that a =failure= to process in a top-down manner.  From my 
 MT> perspective, the fact that subsequent statements will touch the same 
 MT> mail multiple times if it still meets the criteria of each step is 
 MT> =more thorough= top-down than you're hoping for. :)

I agree. Although there are schemes in which the first hit is the only hit,
they are usually used for setting up mutually-exclusive categories.

Regards,

Jerry Schwartz

mailto:jerryschwartz{at}comfortable.com
http://www.writebynight.com

--- Msged/NT 6.0.1