Echo command

This is a weird issue. My command prompt properties have been changed to use Lucida Console 16pt font. If anyone
wants to, you right click the logo in the upper left corner and go to properties-font. I like the larger font.

If I run CMD from the run box and type:
echo [space] followed the the keystrokes of holding the alt key and typing 0219.

This produces: echo Û
echo u-circumflex.
If I type the same thing but just 219 I get the square block graphic character, which by the way is what I want.

Okay so I now know 219 is what I want. So I make a batch file and do the same thing this time as part of a script I
type echo and about 10 or so 219's.
echo ████████████████
If this comes out in your email okay it should be a long black rectangle.
But it doesn't come out that way in the batch file. And yes, same font settings.
It comes out like this:
echo ªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªª
And I can't find that character anywhere in the charmap for Lucida Console, unicode.

To reiterate: It types into the batch file correctly, and looks good, but once run and on the screen it doesn't. Yet
it types into a command prompt fine and comes out fine. So what is the diff between batch and command. I thought
they were both the same?

I'm perplexed.

On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:30:29 -0500, Big_Al wrote:

This is a weird issue. My command prompt properties have been changed to use Lucida Console 16pt font. If anyone
wants to, you right click the logo in the upper left corner and go to properties-font. I like the larger font.

If I run CMD from the run box and type:
echo [space] followed the the keystrokes of holding the alt key and typing 0219.

This produces: echo Û
echo u-circumflex.
If I type the same thing but just 219 I get the square block graphic character, which by the way is what I want.

Okay so I now know 219 is what I want. So I make a batch file and do the same thing this time as part of a script I
type echo and about 10 or so 219's.
echo ████████████████
If this comes out in your email okay it should be a long black rectangle.
But it doesn't come out that way in the batch file. And yes, same font settings.
It comes out like this:
echo ªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªª
And I can't find that character anywhere in the charmap for Lucida Console, unicode.

To reiterate: It types into the batch file correctly, and looks good, but once run and on the screen it doesn't. Yet
it types into a command prompt fine and comes out fine. So what is the diff between batch and command. I thought
they were both the same?

I'm perplexed.

The command prompt and your text editor treat the alt-number sequences
differently. Probably, they are using different character sets.

For instance, Notepad (which I never use except to investigate questions
like yours) gives me the black rectangle *when I type it* and Notepad++
gives me a vertical bar. But if I save what I typed in Notepad and open
it in either editor, it reverts to the vertical bar - unless I do
something special when I save it (which I didn't and probably won't).

Although it's quite unclear from what you wrote, I am assuming that you
did press the Alt key before entering 219 and released it after the '9'
separately for each character.

BTW, â–ˆ works in my newsreader - at least as I type it. Who knows what
anyone will see later?

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Gene E. Bloch wrote on 2/23/2015 5:56 PM:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:30:29 -0500, Big_Al wrote:

This is a weird issue. My command prompt properties have been changed to use Lucida Console 16pt font. If anyone
wants to, you right click the logo in the upper left corner and go to properties-font. I like the larger font.

If I run CMD from the run box and type:
echo [space] followed the the keystrokes of holding the alt key and typing 0219.

This produces: echo Û
echo u-circumflex.
If I type the same thing but just 219 I get the square block graphic character, which by the way is what I want.

Okay so I now know 219 is what I want. So I make a batch file and do the same thing this time as part of a script I
type echo and about 10 or so 219's.
echo ████████████████
If this comes out in your email okay it should be a long black rectangle.
But it doesn't come out that way in the batch file. And yes, same font settings.
It comes out like this:
echo ªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªª
And I can't find that character anywhere in the charmap for Lucida Console, unicode.

To reiterate: It types into the batch file correctly, and looks good, but once run and on the screen it doesn't. Yet
it types into a command prompt fine and comes out fine. So what is the diff between batch and command. I thought
they were both the same?

I'm perplexed.

The command prompt and your text editor treat the alt-number sequences
differently. Probably, they are using different character sets.

For instance, Notepad (which I never use except to investigate questions
like yours) gives me the black rectangle *when I type it* and Notepad++
gives me a vertical bar. But if I save what I typed in Notepad and open
it in either editor, it reverts to the vertical bar - unless I do
something special when I save it (which I didn't and probably won't).

Although it's quite unclear from what you wrote, I am assuming that you
did press the Alt key before entering 219 and released it after the '9'
separately for each character.

BTW, â–ˆ works in my newsreader - at least as I type it. Who knows what
anyone will see later?

I realize, and yes it's probably part of the complex mix, the part about all the different fonts used for everything.
My only concern is "echo XXX" in a batch file is not the same as "echo XXX" in the command prompt.
I'll try different editors to see if the editor is screwing around with me. I might even just echo "echo XXX"test.bat
and see what happens.

Big_Al wrote:
Gene E. Bloch wrote on 2/23/2015 5:56 PM:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:30:29 -0500, Big_Al wrote:

This is a weird issue. My command prompt properties have been changed to use Lucida Console 16pt font. If anyone
wants to, you right click the logo in the upper left corner and go to properties-font. I like the larger font.

If I run CMD from the run box and type:
echo [space] followed the the keystrokes of holding the alt key and typing 0219.

This produces: echo Û
echo u-circumflex.
If I type the same thing but just 219 I get the square block graphic character, which by the way is what I want.

Okay so I now know 219 is what I want. So I make a batch file and do the same thing this time as part of a script I
type echo and about 10 or so 219's.
echo ████████████████
If this comes out in your email okay it should be a long black rectangle.
But it doesn't come out that way in the batch file. And yes, same font settings.
It comes out like this:
echo ªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªª
And I can't find that character anywhere in the charmap for Lucida Console, unicode.

To reiterate: It types into the batch file correctly, and looks good, but once run and on the screen it doesn't. Yet
it types into a command prompt fine and comes out fine. So what is the diff between batch and command. I thought
they were both the same?

I'm perplexed.
The command prompt and your text editor treat the alt-number sequences
differently. Probably, they are using different character sets.

For instance, Notepad (which I never use except to investigate questions
like yours) gives me the black rectangle *when I type it* and Notepad++
gives me a vertical bar. But if I save what I typed in Notepad and open
it in either editor, it reverts to the vertical bar - unless I do
something special when I save it (which I didn't and probably won't).

Although it's quite unclear from what you wrote, I am assuming that you
did press the Alt key before entering 219 and released it after the '9'
separately for each character.

BTW, â–ˆ works in my newsreader - at least as I type it. Who knows what
anyone will see later?

I realize, and yes it's probably part of the complex mix, the part about all the different fonts used for everything.
My only concern is "echo XXX" in a batch file is not the same as "echo XXX" in the command prompt.
I'll try different editors to see if the editor is screwing around with me. I might even just echo "echo XXX"test.bat
and see what happens.


Just out of curiosity, is the .bat environment considered to
use 7 bit ASCII alone ? Or is any possible character (pasted
foreign wide characters, extended ASCII) expected to work ?

Perhaps there is some short hand, rather than typing an alt-sequence
into the thing directly.

And I see here, it's a mess. "Fun with CHCP command..."

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3...mmand-line-how

*******

I tested your batch file commands, and got different
results than you, and got different results on each
OS tested. The word "flaky" comes to mind. The only
place I got to see "superscript letter a" show up,
is in your posting.

The black box character, I can use a hex editor and
overtype a character and replace it with 0xDB and then
the black box will show. Then, I don't need to get the
ALT thing working.

Your "superscript letter a" result is "feminine ordinal".
But it also displays here as a negate symbol (logical NOT).
The hex code for that is 0xAA, when pasted into my
text editor, decimal would be 170 if using the alt trick.
So for some reason, the 0xDB gets converted to 0xAA or
something.

Paul

On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 19:08:37 -0500, Big_Al wrote:

I realize, and yes it's probably part of the complex mix, the part about all the different fonts used for everything.
My only concern is "echo XXX" in a batch file is not the same as "echo XXX" in the command prompt.
I'll try different editors to see if the editor is screwing around with me. I might even just echo "echo XXX"test.bat
and see what happens.

I'm not up to speed on fonts and character sets but I don't think it's
got anything to do with editors. I think the actual numbers saved in
each byte are the same and that it's what character set (and/or font?)
is being used to display the characters that causes the change. You set
it to Lucida Console earlier to create it. What was the viewer used to
see what the batch file did using?

--
Faster, cheaper, quieter than HS2
and built in 5 years;
UKUltraspeed http://www.500kmh.com/

Rodney Pont wrote on 2/24/2015 1:05 AM:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 19:08:37 -0500, Big_Al wrote:

I realize, and yes it's probably part of the complex mix, the part about all the different fonts used for everything.
My only concern is "echo XXX" in a batch file is not the same as "echo XXX" in the command prompt.
I'll try different editors to see if the editor is screwing around with me. I might even just echo "echo XXX"test.bat
and see what happens.

I'm not up to speed on fonts and character sets but I don't think it's
got anything to do with editors. I think the actual numbers saved in
each byte are the same and that it's what character set (and/or font?)
is being used to display the characters that causes the change. You set
it to Lucida Console earlier to create it. What was the viewer used to
see what the batch file did using?

I found running the batch file with a 'pause' to keep the DOS window open allows me to edit the settings and font. And
once done, when that bat file is run it will remember and use that same config (font). So the batch file is also using
the Lucida Console font.

Some where the idea of editing with a hex editor was stated. I like that idea as a possible solution. I have not had
time to get back to any of the ideas presented that seem to have some possible merit. Maybe later today.

Big_Al wrote on 2/24/2015 5:17 AM:
Rodney Pont wrote on 2/24/2015 1:05 AM:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 19:08:37 -0500, Big_Al wrote:

I realize, and yes it's probably part of the complex mix, the part about all the different fonts used for everything.
My only concern is "echo XXX" in a batch file is not the same as "echo XXX" in the command prompt.
I'll try different editors to see if the editor is screwing around with me. I might even just echo "echo XXX"test.bat
and see what happens.

I'm not up to speed on fonts and character sets but I don't think it's
got anything to do with editors. I think the actual numbers saved in
each byte are the same and that it's what character set (and/or font?)
is being used to display the characters that causes the change. You set
it to Lucida Console earlier to create it. What was the viewer used to
see what the batch file did using?

I found running the batch file with a 'pause' to keep the DOS window open allows me to edit the settings and font. And
once done, when that bat file is run it will remember and use that same config (font). So the batch file is also using
the Lucida Console font.

Some where the idea of editing with a hex editor was stated. I like that idea as a possible solution. I have not had
time to get back to any of the ideas presented that seem to have some possible merit. Maybe later today.

Update:
The hex edit thing did the trick. My mind is so scrambled with what the f**k is going on it's no wonder it makes much
sense. But hex editor will change the characters to xDB and things work.
I can understand the notepad++ now showing the right characters, I've got it set for some other font. And I'm kinda
leaning towards the fact that I'm typing it in with notepad++ using one font and then running it with another. Or
that's my guess.

The bottom line is I can hex editor the file, fix the character and then in notepad++ I can copy and past what I want to
other places. To elaborate, this batch file copies strategic folders to a thumb drive on demand. Backup. When it
runs I like it noted on the screen what subject I'm backing up, Fireofx, Chrome, Pidgin, MS game stats etc. So I echo
"Thunderbird" to the screen. But I have a C++ utility that prints the word in large letters called 'bigltrs.exe'. So
in the final output of the batch file I see this:

┌┬�┬ ┬┬ ┬┬�┌┬─�┬─�┬─�┬� ┬ ┬─�┬─�
│ ├─┤│ │││││ │├─ ├┬┘├┴� │ ├┬┘│ │
â”´ â”´ ┴└─┘┘└┴┴─┘┴─┘┘└─┠´â”€â”˜ â”´ ┘└─┴─┘

then the list of files it's backing up. Using Robocopy /MIR to do the labor.
Problem is that my utility in combination with a newline for clarity and the scrolling of the window and any number of
odd combination of events leaves a bit of garbage whitespace on the screen. Not a line across the screen but someplace
usually at the end of a line that was printed. It also does not scroll so it stays there. It's not hampering
anything as it's really cosmetic, but my challenge for the month is to fix this. My solution was to just use these
block characters and the simple echo command to change this to :

█████████████ THUNDERBIRD

and leave it that way. the blocks would highlight the name as the text scrolls.
Now that I've got the hex edit thing working, I'm on my way to mass replace all the bigltrs commands.

Of course this whole thread holds a lot more impact if your viewer is seeing the characters as I see them. Everything
here in this post looks proper on my screen. With all the varied languages and readers and OSs around the world, I can
only guess who can and can't see this subject matter right. :-) Thanks for all the input.

Big_Al wrote:
Big_Al wrote on 2/24/2015 5:17 AM:
Rodney Pont wrote on 2/24/2015 1:05 AM:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 19:08:37 -0500, Big_Al wrote:

I realize, and yes it's probably part of the complex mix, the part about all the different fonts used for everything.
My only concern is "echo XXX" in a batch file is not the same as "echo XXX" in the command prompt.
I'll try different editors to see if the editor is screwing around with me. I might even just echo "echo XXX"test.bat
and see what happens.
I'm not up to speed on fonts and character sets but I don't think it's
got anything to do with editors. I think the actual numbers saved in
each byte are the same and that it's what character set (and/or font?)
is being used to display the characters that causes the change. You set
it to Lucida Console earlier to create it. What was the viewer used to
see what the batch file did using?

I found running the batch file with a 'pause' to keep the DOS window open allows me to edit the settings and font. And
once done, when that bat file is run it will remember and use that same config (font). So the batch file is also using
the Lucida Console font.

Some where the idea of editing with a hex editor was stated. I like that idea as a possible solution. I have not had
time to get back to any of the ideas presented that seem to have some possible merit. Maybe later today.

Update:
The hex edit thing did the trick. My mind is so scrambled with what the f**k is going on it's no wonder it makes much
sense. But hex editor will change the characters to xDB and things work.
I can understand the notepad++ now showing the right characters, I've got it set for some other font. And I'm kinda
leaning towards the fact that I'm typing it in with notepad++ using one font and then running it with another. Or
that's my guess.

The bottom line is I can hex editor the file, fix the character and then in notepad++ I can copy and past what I want to
other places. To elaborate, this batch file copies strategic folders to a thumb drive on demand. Backup. When it
runs I like it noted on the screen what subject I'm backing up, Fireofx, Chrome, Pidgin, MS game stats etc. So I echo
"Thunderbird" to the screen. But I have a C++ utility that prints the word in large letters called 'bigltrs.exe'. So
in the final output of the batch file I see this:

┌┬�┬ ┬┬ ┬┬�┌┬─�┬─�┬─�┬� ┬ ┬─�┬─�
│ ├─┤│ │││││ │├─ ├┬┘├┴� │ ├┬┘│ │
â”´ â”´ ┴└─┘┘└┴┴─┘┴─┘┘└─┠´â”€â”˜ â”´ ┘└─┴─┘

then the list of files it's backing up. Using Robocopy /MIR to do the labor.
Problem is that my utility in combination with a newline for clarity and the scrolling of the window and any number of
odd combination of events leaves a bit of garbage whitespace on the screen. Not a line across the screen but someplace
usually at the end of a line that was printed. It also does not scroll so it stays there. It's not hampering
anything as it's really cosmetic, but my challenge for the month is to fix this. My solution was to just use these
block characters and the simple echo command to change this to :

█████████████ THUNDERBIRD

and leave it that way. the blocks would highlight the name as the text scrolls.
Now that I've got the hex edit thing working, I'm on my way to mass replace all the bigltrs commands.

Of course this whole thread holds a lot more impact if your viewer is seeing the characters as I see them. Everything
here in this post looks proper on my screen. With all the varied languages and readers and OSs around the world, I can
only guess who can and can't see this subject matter right. :-) Thanks for all the input.

I'm too tired to offer meaningful feedback,
but I gotta say, visually, this post looks great :-)
Thunderbirds are go...

Paul

Paul wrote on 2/24/2015 6:10 AM:
Big_Al wrote:
Big_Al wrote on 2/24/2015 5:17 AM:
Rodney Pont wrote on 2/24/2015 1:05 AM:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 19:08:37 -0500, Big_Al wrote:

I realize, and yes it's probably part of the complex mix, the part about all the different fonts used for everything.
My only concern is "echo XXX" in a batch file is not the same as "echo XXX" in the command prompt.
I'll try different editors to see if the editor is screwing around with me. I might even just echo "echo XXX"test.bat
and see what happens.
I'm not up to speed on fonts and character sets but I don't think it's
got anything to do with editors. I think the actual numbers saved in
each byte are the same and that it's what character set (and/or font?)
is being used to display the characters that causes the change. You set
it to Lucida Console earlier to create it. What was the viewer used to
see what the batch file did using?

I found running the batch file with a 'pause' to keep the DOS window open allows me to edit the settings and font. And
once done, when that bat file is run it will remember and use that same config (font). So the batch file is also using
the Lucida Console font.

Some where the idea of editing with a hex editor was stated. I like that idea as a possible solution. I have not had
time to get back to any of the ideas presented that seem to have some possible merit. Maybe later today.

Update:
The hex edit thing did the trick. My mind is so scrambled with what the f**k is going on it's no wonder it makes much
sense. But hex editor will change the characters to xDB and things work.
I can understand the notepad++ now showing the right characters, I've got it set for some other font. And I'm kinda
leaning towards the fact that I'm typing it in with notepad++ using one font and then running it with another. Or
that's my guess.

The bottom line is I can hex editor the file, fix the character and then in notepad++ I can copy and past what I want to
other places. To elaborate, this batch file copies strategic folders to a thumb drive on demand. Backup. When it
runs I like it noted on the screen what subject I'm backing up, Fireofx, Chrome, Pidgin, MS game stats etc. So I echo
"Thunderbird" to the screen. But I have a C++ utility that prints the word in large letters called 'bigltrs.exe'. So
in the final output of the batch file I see this:

┌┬�┬ ┬┬ ┬┬�┌┬─�┬─�┬─�┬� ┬ ┬─�┬─�
│ ├─┤│ │││││ │├─ ├┬┘├┴� │ ├┬┘│ │
â”´ â”´ ┴└─┘┘└┴┴─┘┴─┘┘└─┠´â”€â”˜ â”´ ┘└─┴─┘

then the list of files it's backing up. Using Robocopy /MIR to do the labor.
Problem is that my utility in combination with a newline for clarity and the scrolling of the window and any number of
odd combination of events leaves a bit of garbage whitespace on the screen. Not a line across the screen but someplace
usually at the end of a line that was printed. It also does not scroll so it stays there. It's not hampering
anything as it's really cosmetic, but my challenge for the month is to fix this. My solution was to just use these
block characters and the simple echo command to change this to :

█████████████ THUNDERBIRD

and leave it that way. the blocks would highlight the name as the text scrolls.
Now that I've got the hex edit thing working, I'm on my way to mass replace all the bigltrs commands.

Of course this whole thread holds a lot more impact if your viewer is seeing the characters as I see them. Everything
here in this post looks proper on my screen. With all the varied languages and readers and OSs around the world, I can
only guess who can and can't see this subject matter right. :-) Thanks for all the input.

I'm too tired to offer meaningful feedback,
but I gotta say, visually, this post looks great :-)
Thunderbirds are go...

Paul

It's 6:44 am here EST US. I've been up for 4 hours and I'm surprised I was able to make any sense at this hour. :-)
G'night all!