On Friday, 25 January 2019 12:22:13 UTC, dr.j.r....@gmail.com  wrote:   
   > On Thursday, 24 January 2019 22:49:41 UTC, JJ  wrote:   
   > > On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 12:25:58 -0800 (PST), JRS wrote:   
   > > > I run a batch program (Windows 10 usually; could be earlier maybe)   
   > > > which uses XCOPY (I cannot use COPY, as XCOPY's /D is needed).   
   > > >   
   > > > I use   
   > > >   FOR /F "eol=; tokens=1*" %%J IN ... (   
   > > >     ...   
   > > >     XCOPY /D /Y %%J  %unto%%%J %%K | FIND /v " File(s) copied"   
   > > >     )   
   > > >   
   > > > After various enhancements, it now sometimes asks whether the   
   > > > name on the destination should be a file or a directory, but   
   > > > without the (F = file, D = directory)? - I expect the FIND /v   
   > > > eats that.   
   > > >   
   > > > Is there a good way to eliminate that question, and choose   
   > > > file every time?  Nothing shown by FIND /? seems suitable,   
   > > > but ICBW.  I can answer it "blind", but that's not nice.   
   > > >   
   > > > This is an example of what I mean, I think :-   
   > > >     Prompt>xcopy pascal.htm e:fred.kk   
   > > >     Does E:fred.kk specify a file name   
   > > >     or directory name on the target   
   > > >     (F = file, D = directory)?   
   > >   
   > > XCOPY will prompt you that if the destination doesn't exist. To always   
   treat   
   > > the destination as a file, make sure the destination exists as a file. So,   
   > > create an empty file using the destination path, before executing XCOPY.   
   > > e.g.   
   > >   
   > >   set src=pascal.htm   
   > >   set dest=e:fred.kk   
   > >   (rem.>%dest%)2>nul   
   > >   xcopy /y %src% %dest%   
   >   
   > That, as is, will not do; it will erase the old file %dest%, and   
   > I want to copy only the few new files, leaving the many other old   
   > ones untouched (especially as the destination might be a slow   
   > device, and some files are vast).  So I can use 'if not exist   
   > dest create a dest first'.   
   >   
   > I'd rather not use both XCOPY and XCOPY /D, but instead of   
   > your redirected REM I could copy over an ancient (and perhaps   
   > empty) file.  DOS datestamps used a 16-bit unsigned integer   
   > for days since 1980-01-01 = Day 0, but I see that imported   
   > Touch32 in Win10 can go back to 1601-01-01.  But XCOPY is   
   > ancient, and might not like that.  Going back to, say, 1981   
   > should be safe.   
   >   
   > H'mmm - I've used various ways to create a zero-length file   
   > in the past, presumably because the obvious one did not then   
   > work.   
   >   
   > But (command line)   
   >         copy nul zzz      > nul   
   >         touch32 zzz 1981  > nul   
   >         dir zzz   
   > shows   
   >         1981-01-01  00:00                 0 zzz   
   >   
   > That looks promising.   
      
   But not promising enough - the source argument to XCOPY may contain wildcards,   
   and there may be a /S too.  So I would not always know what substitute file to   
   create.   
      
   > P.S.  I don't mind using an already-imported tool, Touch32; but   
   > I don't want to import and learn another tool for this.  Hence   
   > - no RoboCopy.   
      
   I see that I now have RoboCopy as standard on this PC, and so I suppose on my   
   other Win10 PCs.  But as yet I understand less than half of RoboCopy /? .   
      
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robocopy says "File names and wildcard   
   characters (such as * and ?) are not valid as source or destination   
   arguments.", which makes it incapable of doing the whole job itself.   
      
      
   --   
     (c) John Stockton, near London, UK.  Using Google Groups.           |   
    Mail: J.R.""""""""@physics.org - or as Reply-To, if any.             |   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)