Re^5: Can I do this ???

Very true, and I should have made that point clear.

What I meant to demonstrate is that a "typical" windows batch mode programming style (well, what I saw when I was in an environment where I had to care about those scripts) allows, even encourages, modifying the "parent" process from things that are called.

--MidLifeXis

Comment on Re^5: Can I do this ???

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: Can I do this ??? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jan 22, 2009 at 16:09 UTC
Yes. Combined with setlocal/endlocal it can be a very useful feature. And it's not so different from the *nix shell mechanism of `somekey=somevalue command`. Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. "Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."	[reply] [d/l]
Re^7: Can I do this ??? by rovf (Priest) on Jan 23, 2009 at 13:28 UTC
And it's not so different from the nix shell mechanism of somekey=somevalue command.* On all Unix shells I know, the caller has influence on whether somekey would end up in his/her environment, not (like in Windows Batch) the callee. For instance, if I call from bash a script like this: `source gurgle.bash` [download] no child is born and the environment changes will be reflected in my environment. If I call it like this: `gurgle.bash` [download] or `bash gurgle.bash` [download] I do get a child and my environment stays unpolluted. -- Ronald Fischer <ynnor@mm.st>	[reply] [d/l] [select]


Clear questions and runnable code get the best and fastest answer
	PerlMonks