M Mark Zbikowski \(MSFT\) Jul 26, 2003 #2 "Call" just nests within CMD's data structures. CMD /C starts an entire new process. You cannot easily simulate CALL :label with a CMD /C since this may have side effects.
"Call" just nests within CMD's data structures. CMD /C starts an entire new process. You cannot easily simulate CALL :label with a CMD /C since this may have side effects.
K Karl Bernard Jul 26, 2003 #3 So, for clarity, with "CALL" I could call (jump to) a label within the same script (much like a GOTO), or call another script? I understand that CMD invokes another interpreter, so I guess using CALL could also be more "resource friendly" by invoking fewer new processes? Thanks, Karl
So, for clarity, with "CALL" I could call (jump to) a label within the same script (much like a GOTO), or call another script? I understand that CMD invokes another interpreter, so I guess using CALL could also be more "resource friendly" by invoking fewer new processes? Thanks, Karl
M Mark Zbikowski \(MSFT\) Jul 29, 2003 #4 CALL is like a subroutine call. It does NOT launch another CMD. CMD *is* the command interpreter. So doing CMD /C is invoking another process.
CALL is like a subroutine call. It does NOT launch another CMD. CMD *is* the command interpreter. So doing CMD /C is invoking another process.
