GET_FILES@ for arbitrary directory

When you search for the files starting with letter A in the deeper in the tree directory FOLDER1 you type

C:> dir FOLDER1\a*

and DOS finds it for you

But searching for the same files using GET_FILES@ finds you zero files. Seems GET_FILES@ is searching only in the current to invoking executable directory or i use wrong syntax. If any other ways exist to get the same functionality ?

The help file does say that get_files@ searches the current working directory. You can use attach@ to change the current working directory before using get_files@ (with the appropriate search string).

If you need to re-instate the current working directory then you should call current_dir@ before attach@ etc.

You could try files@. It has always worked well for me:

      call files@ (dir_tree,                     &  ! C320 directory to scan
                   n,                            &  ! I2   number of entries found
                   nmax,                         &  ! I2   capacity of buffers
                   file_name(next),              &  ! C320 tree name of files found
                   attr(next),                   &  ! I2   DOS attributes
                   date(next),                   &  ! I2   DOS date format
                   time(next),                   &  ! I2   DOS time format
                   file_size(next) )                ! I4   File size in bytes

for size > 2gb, files8@ returns a file_size as real*8 I use it to scan the disk for all files, although I think wildcards also work

Thanks Paul and John. This compiler is like its own universe. It sprawled so much so it is easy to miss yourself there, a lot of options and features...I found that i've used before currdir@, files@ get_files@ and many others (the older FTN77 utilities and Clearwin-related file handling... so many of them are here...some are new, some obsolete in several generations of this compiler) but just completely forgot details. Or may be getting Alzheimer or something... 😄

What i miss in new combined with Clearwin FTN95 help is

1. No direct search for % Clearwin codes
2. No or poorly made system of hyperlinks
3. No Related Topics hyperlink
4. Not many fortran examples are included

That would help to answer our multiple questions much faster, and may be my Alzheimer question would not appear here. 😃 I know there exist File Manupulation topic in Contents, but as i said the compiler libraries became large universe, and there are too many of routines listed just alphabetically without direct relevance to each other

For example, in older CWPFTN help i would immediately find needed % control (while new help does not allow this completely), then at the bottom could refine my search clicking, say on %sf. Then I could further do refinements, and finally with Related Topics find everything else existing in a snap (see picture of comparison of new and old help systems. Same is with GET_FILES@ and many other topics which do not have % sign). Like in a chain reaction

So the new FTN95 help misses in this respect a lot... I've seen here some other users also suggested to include that and we discussed partially some of this before. Some of them are due to Microsoft restrictions. Are, for example, the absent hyper-links or Related Topics also due to the new Microsoft restrictions on help syntax?

I understand this is a lot of work for developers to review and add all of that hyperlinks to each and every topic, but i'd still encourage to try to find possible workarounds and include these features. That's brings completely new quality to using this help file. Think about this. May be we as users can help expanding and editing hyperlink structure (in a manner of users contributable Wikipedia), i do not know.

Thanks for the suggestions.

The reason behind the missing search for %xx is that this later Microsoft help engine does not support the % sign (or at least I have not found a way to do it). The ealier ClearWin+ help used the old help engine and this is nolonger automatically suppled by Microsoft. In fact when I get time I will have to convert other help files to the later engine.

I am aware of the missing links etc but these issues have a relatively low priority at the moment.