Using dosbox 0.63 on Windows XP. The following command -- "copy file.txt file.txt.bak" -- assuming file.txt exists, does not create file.txt.bak, and overwrites file.txt with a zero byte file. Okay, so now I know the two names are seen as equivalent, stupid me, but wouldn't it be better if instead of overwriting the file copy exited and spit out an error message?
It would be best to replicate whatever the behavior is in old versions of DOS. The reason this happens it that, just like pure DOS, DOSBox doesn't support long filenames (filenames that don't fit into the mold of having 8 characters, one period, and three more characters). I don't know if classic DOS would have complained about copying a file over itself or not...
Ok in DosBox:
Copy file.txt file.txt.bak
you end up with the original file being overwritten with a 0 byte file.
In Window 98 DOS 7
Copy file.txt to file.txt.bak
you get this error message "File Not Found file.txt.bak".
Also DOS 7 cannot copy a file onto itself. If you do a
copy file.txt to file.txt
The error message is "File cannot be copied onto itself".
DOS doesn't like more than 1 period in a filename.
So yeah DosBox shouldn't overwrite a file with a 0byte file, it should complain just like Real DOS.
wrote:So yeah DosBox shouldn't overwrite a file with a 0byte file, it should complain just like Real DOS.
Iirc, such a warning didn't exist in DOS 6.2 or below (DOSbox tries to emulate 5.0), so yes, DOSbox should emulate 'real DOS', but not DOS 7 or above.
JAL
I'll test that out but I'd consider DOS 7 just as much DOS as DOS 6.2...moreso since it's the latest MS-DOS. I definetly don't consider overwriting files with 0byte ones a good thing....I could just be crazy tho.
wrote:I'll test that out but I'd consider DOS 7 just as much DOS as DOS 6.2...moreso since it's the latest MS-DOS. I definetly don't consider overwriting files with 0byte ones a good thing....I could just be crazy tho.
DOS 7 may be the latest version, but it's enhanced in many ways compared to DOS 5.0 or 6.2. And like I said, iirc Qbix has many times stated that it is DOSbox' aim to emulate DOS 5.0. Overwriting files may not be a good thing, but if that's what DOS 5.0 does, it is not per se a bad thing to implement.
JAL
wrote:I definetly don't consider overwriting files with 0byte ones a good thing....I could just be crazy tho.
Suppose that some batch files make use of this behavior, things wouldn't work right. Anyway, most dos games (and apps) are not written with DOS 7 in mind so I think it's good the way it is now.
3803: That's pretty much my line of thinking.
Show me a batch file demonstrating copying one file over the same filename.......and not some made up one either.
Alright, just tested with MSDOS 5 and 6.22 boot disks.
Result:
"File cannot be copied on itself."
There. It's in 5.00, therefore it's a bug in DosBox. Geesh.
wrote:Alright, just tested with MSDOS 5 and 6.22 boot disks.
"File cannot be copied on itself."
There. It's in 5.00, therefore it's a bug in DosBox. Geesh.
Thank you DosFreak, that's all we wanted to know 😀.
JAL
