How to keep the text format during loop in DOS

Though the question is answered by BillDL, it would be a good idea to show what you want to do while processing. Your example looks very much like an TNSNames.ora file (Oracle Network definition). Parsing in the batch will be hard, as already mentioned by Bill.

If you want to replace a host name without changing anything else, an external tool like chgstr might be a better choice.

BillDL, thank you so much for indeeep analysis. Only question left is for blank line. Which condition should be set to catch a blank line? For example,
type test.txt
This is a test.
  Test

This is the last line.
----------
I tried to catch it by
if "%%a"=="" @echo.>>test1.txt
but it failed to do so.

Qlemo, thanks for your suggestion. I need to work out this issue.

I

Retaining empty lines needs more effort. They are ignored by FOR /F. We have to add something to each line, and remove it afterwards. This is best done with find adding line numbers (in square brackets), which we ignore then:

@echo off
(for /f "tokens=1* delims=]" %%A in ('find /n /v "" ^< test.txt') do @echo %%B) > test1.txt
pause
                                              

1:
2:
3:

You're welcome jl66.  I had a feeling that you would be wanting to do a whole lot more with the file.  Qlemo's method of using the /N switch in the FIND command to create line numbers in square brackets is exactly the method I have used often before to do just the same thing as you need.  And here was me thinking I had a clever little personal trick of my own ;-)

I've just spent 2 whole hours (I know... I should have known better) experimentally trying to crack this one again... hoping to find something new.


Qlemo
Call yourself a programmer!.... tut, tut, tut.... Your code fails to produce the required output

BillDL
Call yourself a programmer!.... tut, tut, tut.... Your code fails to produce the goodies too.

jl66
Call yourself lucky!! I'm a programmer! Yippee!! Check out the code below....


    @echo off
    copy nul test1.txt >nul

    for /f "tokens=1,* delims=[]" %%a in ('type test.txt^|find /n /v ""') do (
       echo.%%b>>test1.txt
    )

Oh, by the way, the code handles the following:


    Lines with leading spaces
    Lines with leading tabs
    Blank lines (just Carriage-Return and Linefeed)
    Blank lines (just spaces)
    Blank lines (just tabs)
    Any other line



    @echo off
    copy nul test1.txt >nul

    for /f "tokens=1,* delims=[]" %%a in ('type test.txt^|find /n /v ""') do (
       echo.%%b>>test1.txt
    )

Paul,

I tested my code with the example shown above, and more, and it works. Why shouldn't it? It does not differ much from your proposal. In fact, the changes you applied are irrelevant.

hehehe..... :)

Paul,

I think you misunderstood some of the principles here: Experts collaborate to get a solution, not compete with each other.
And it is common sense to prove something is not working, not only assuming it.

Well, I'm terribly sorry (for you), having to say that all three codes work the same (as soon as BillDL's code is adapted to your file naming). I do not dare to say my code is correct, but that it works with the example.

BTW, telling askers into how they have to accept is drawing attention of the Moderators, as it is considered inappropriate. Since I'm loosing my temper (based on your attitude), I might help a bit with that part.

1) Thanks to everyone very much. Everyone's inputs are valuable to me and I will properly weigh it as best as I can.
2) This is a platform to exchange ideas and I am learning from your experts. Meanwhile I throw my issues, which may trigger the friendly debates which is needed, and provide the opportunity your experts are learning from each other. That is all about. Take easy and be happy.

Everyone

I think this is a clear example of how it is impossible, within the written word alone, to portray a tongue-in-cheek and twinkle in the eye jesting with others no matter how many smileys are used, unless the reader is on exactly the same wave length with, and has previously had the benefit of watching and listening to, the writer in person.

We all have our own personalities that may or may not become apparent the longer we read each others' postings.  Some people are fiercely competitive and strive to outwit others in any way possible, and for those people the competitive nature is probably what has made them excel in certain activities, just like an athlete can't give up the need to beat the opposition or risk losing focus.  It's sometimes hard to know at what point the desire to win has exceeded what is deemed to be excessive and counter-productive.  Perhaps Tonya Harding could guide us on that issue ;-)

Did that tonge-in-cheek jibe come across as intended?

In context with the intentons within this question, all three of our batch files output exactly the same results.  An example file was given without a fuller explanation as to why it needed to be parsed.  The file does not contain blank lines, fancy characters, or any other potential impediments that would cause my original batch file to fail.  In my batch example I did not intend to preempt such complications, but did warn that other difficulties could be encountered dependent on what the file was being parsed for.

I agree that it is probably better at the outset to eliminate as many potential "DOS" traps as is possible, but if we were to get really pedantic about covering all likely events, we would be driving about all year round with 75% anti-freeze in the windscreen washer, snow chains on the tyres, swimming trunks, sun-block cream and a spear gun in case we ended up on a beach, a climbing rope and carabiners in case we ended up on a mountain pass, a kite in case it got windy, a Liebigs Condenser in case we ended up somewhere with polluted water and got thirsty, a stun gun and hand-held siren in case we were attacked by a bear/shark/lion/camel, and a collection of Snickers bars and jerky in case we got stuck in the middle of nowhere in a sandstorm/snowstorm/earthquake/flood.

Now, that's just plain ridiculous, but I hope my humour came through ;-)

try using printf

alisafia

there is no printf in DOS batch language

t0t0

>>> "Please have the courtesy of checking your code before making wild statements like 'all three codes work the same'." <<<

I did comparison of the outputs from all three batch files using the example text, and that includes variances in white space.  The output files are exactly the same for the example given.  I don't really care if the outputs differ when using a different source file, and I haven't taken the time to even check, because it wasn't within the context of the question.  I don't intend to begin arguing who is right and who is wrong.  All batch files do as intended given the criteria presented.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you had a twinkle in your eye when you started laying down challenges, but I take it back now and have to say that your insistance of always being right is quite annoying at times.  To demand points and instruct the asker to dismiss sugestions made by other experts is not only patronising to the asker, but as insulting to the other experts as being kicked in the nuts from behind.

Bill

BillDL
I'm a programmer. That's what I do. I don't do it for a job. I do it out of interest. And I take it quite seriously.

I'm here to provide solutions to questions which I find intellectually amusing. And fo course, I'm competing for points. There! I've said it!

When working alongside other experts who rank high in their field of expertise, I don't think it's patronising to expect the same level of commitment to detail.

Even in your last comment, you still maintain all three codes produce the same results. Even though it's obvious they don't. To you, this is a game. It's not about you being so short-sighted you fail see the wood through the trees, nor about you being ignorant to the point of failing to acknowledge the facts presented in my previous comment.

For your information, when comparing the results of our codes, I DID used only the source data provided by the asker.

I have provided a screen dump of my test runs.

I'm not going to argue this one with you because this is no longer turning out to be a scientific discussion.

I'll tell you what, you can keep the sodding points and continue to behave like children.

Ehem. Just to stay technically sober:

jl66
You must be a bit fed up by now with your question having been transformed into a circus.  Hopefully your question has been answered and you will be inclined to close it out.  How you do so is entirely up to you.  I'm not really too concerned by which comment(s) you choose to accept.  Don't take that as being apathetic to you or to your question though.  If you got what you needed from the question, then that's really what matters in the end, and what Experts-Exchange should be all about.
Regards
Bill

Hmmmm ...... :)

Sorry for late response. I carefully tested the solutions. Everyone's exceeds my expectation, so each of you should be awarded full 500 points. However, all I have is only 500. I have to split them.
You may think I am greedy. The issue is that I have multiple blocks like my original question seperated by blank lines. I must process them. Next time I will create a new ticket for my new question. Sorry for that.
1) Bill answered it early for my original question correctly.
2)  Qlemo and t0t0 are real sharp "programmers/solution providers". I made a test file combined my two test files together and add one more blank line in the bottom. Here is hte results I got with fc:
M:\>fc test.txt  output
Comparing files test.txt and OUTPUT
FC: no differences encountered

M:\>fc test1.txt  test.txt
Comparing files test1.txt and TEST.TXT
***** test1.txt
***** TEST.TXT

*****

It seems t0t0's solution is a little bit better this time.You both deserve 500*500 points. But this time I am going to select Bill as an solution. Sorry for both of you. Appreciate for your great ideas and outstanding expertise.
 

"The silent bird catches the worm" - or was it "early"?

Excellent!!!

>>"It seems t0t0's solution is a little bit better this time."

What do you mean, "it seems a little better"? It's the ONLY solution that actually worked! (http:#25720032)


>>"But this time I am going to select Bill as an solution."

Here are the three programs BillDL submitted. Please state which one you have selected as a solution:

   (A) http:#25712843 - @echo off
                                  for /f "tokens=* delims=" %%a in ('type test.txt') do @echo %%a>> test1.txt

   (B) http:#25712847 - @echo off
                                  for /f "tokens=* delims=" %%a in (test.txt) do @echo %%a>> test1.txt

   (C) http:#25712887 - @echo off
                                  for /f "tokens=1-2 delims=," %%a in (test.txt) do @echo %%b%%a>> test1.txt

So, you won't be using my solution at all then, nor Qlemos?.... I only ask because if your source file contains spaces then none of BillDL's programs will work properly.


>>"Qlemo and t0t0 are real sharp "programmers/solution providers"

50% of this statement is highly questionable! But you failed to spot this.


>>"The silent bird catches the worm" - or was it "early"?

This has nothing to do with "silence" or "birds" however, I'm not too sure about "worrms" though.


>>"Bill answered it early for my original question correctly"

Oh, well that solves it then!!
 

Thank you jl66.
I feel embarrassed that you had to sit out and endure a load of petty nonsense about why everyone else was wrong except for one.

I am pleased that you did get the solution to the follow-on part of your question that helps you with the blank line issue though.  Don't worry about feeling the need to ask a separate question for a follow-on query that is clearly still very much in context with the originally asked one.

It's perfectly reasonable to ask for a batch file to be extended, reworked, revised, etc. to accommodate some issues that have come to light after the original question was posed, but which weren't specifically indicated as criteria at the outset.  It's totally unreasonable, however, being made to feel as if you are being bullied into acceptance of one person's solution.

You don't have to apologise to anyone in any way about not having posted a full block of text.  How were you to anticipate that it may have been an important issue?  You certainly are not responsible for the aftermath.  Sometimes questions are asked and solutions are reached in separate episodes.  That's just a fact of life.

t0t0
Could you please stop plastering my name all over your infantile comments.  I provided two variants of one batch file, plus one further batch example and a full explanation of the THEORY behind each of them.  This was in direct response to the ORIGINALLY ASKED QUESTION.  Read that again please - THE ORIGINAL QUESTION.  The ORIGINAL source text, NOT the example in the follow-up comment.  I then stepped back out of the question when Qlemo provided a suggestion to address that follow-up issue about blank lines.

You just can't seem to get this part through your head, can you?
Look, you are at it again in your very last comment, which I regard as overtly challenging to jl66, and and yet another attempt to stab others between the shoulder blades:
>>> "... if your source file contains spaces then none of BillDL's programs will work properly." <<<

Who the hell ever said that my batch file would work on a source containing blank lines?  I certainly didn't, and nor did jl66.

By harping on like a lunatic you are angering me and insulting the intelligence of jl66, who has provided some very clear and concise reasons why he made his final choice, a decision that he should not feel intimidated about doing.

Thank you again jl66 :-)

Bill