Hello all,

I've got a program which generates a wordpad document, which I than open by
double-clicking it.

The problem is that when the document is open and I re-generate the document
and double-click it I still see the old contents. To see the new contents I
have to close the old, still-open document first.

Question:
Is there a way to override this behaviour using a command-line argument ?
Even just having two document windows open would be an improvement.

remark: I prefer /not/ to use taskkill.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:34:10 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:

>Hello all,
>
>I've got a program which generates a wordpad document, which I than open by
>double-clicking it.
>
>The problem is that when the document is open and I re-generate the document
>and double-click it I still see the old contents. To see the new contents I
>have to close the old, still-open document first.
>
>Question:
>Is there a way to override this behaviour using a command-line argument ?
>Even just having two document windows open would be an improvement.
>
>remark: I prefer /not/ to use taskkill.

Does it have to be WordPad? Notepad++, by default, throws up a small info box to
let you know that the underlying document has been changed, and would you like
to reload it to see the changes (Yes/No). I don't know how to do that in
WordPad.

Char,

> Does it have to be WordPad? Notepad++, by default, [snip]

I could do that, but that means that *all* the documents with that
particular extension will be opened by it. And thats not what I'm looking
for.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 3/25/2024 4:34 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I've got a program which generates a wordpad document, which I than open by
> double-clicking it.
>
> The problem is that when the document is open and I re-generate the document
> and double-click it I still see the old contents. To see the new contents I
> have to close the old, still-open document first.
>
> Question:
> Is there a way to override this behaviour using a command-line argument ?
> Even just having two document windows open would be an improvement.
>
> remark: I prefer /not/ to use taskkill.
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser

Do you have the source code for this program ?

It might be possible to fix the situation with some source editing.

outputfilename-Mar25-2024-1058AM.doc
\------------/ \---------------/

Etcetera.

Paul

Paul,

> It might be possible to fix the situation with some source editing.
>
> outputfilename-Mar25-2024-1058AM.doc
> \------------/ \---------------/

I was also considering something in that direction, but that would leave me
with ever more files I would need to clean up.

The thing is that I've already gone over a few options, but wanted to check
if there perhaps is an easy, clean and build-in option already available.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:

> I've got a program which generates a wordpad document, which I than
> open by double-clicking it.

No such thing as a Wordpad filetype. Do you mean an RTF (Rich Text
Format) file, so you can have formatting since text doesn't? Is there
any formatting in the file (i.e., is it just a text file you could open
in Notepad)?

Other programs can open an RTF file, like Word, LibreOffice, and even
Wordpad. RTF is not solely a "Wordpad document".

> The problem is that when the document is open and I re-generate the
> document and double-click it I still see the old contents. To see
> the new contents I have to close the old, still-open document first.

You can't get your "program" to timestamp its output file, like
file_yymmddhhss (year, month, day, hour, seconds)? Then Wordpad would
have a different target to load instead of failing to open a locked
file. You have a file handle with write state since you already have it
opened for write in Wordpad. Wordpad is an editor, not a viewer.

The "program" should not be stepping atop an existing file (that it
created before) without a prompt asking for you to grant it to
overwrite. At the prompt, if properly coded, the program should allow
you to specify a different filename. What happens when the program
attempts to write to the same file, but it is locked (another process
has write access on the file, like an editor)? A write-locked file for
one process can still be read by another process, but other-process
writes should be blocked to prevent yanking away a document on which you
are currently working.

> Question: Is there a way to override this behaviour using a
> command-line argument ? Even just having two document windows open
> would be an improvement.

The only command-line argument I've heard of for wordpad.exe,
notepad.exe, and write.exe (other than a filespec) is /p which is
somehow used for printing.

On 3/25/2024 12:48 PM, R.Wieser wrote:
> Paul,
>
>> It might be possible to fix the situation with some source editing.
>>
>> outputfilename-Mar25-2024-1058AM.doc
>> \------------/ \---------------/
>
> I was also considering something in that direction, but that would leave me
> with ever more files I would need to clean up.
>
> The thing is that I've already gone over a few options, but wanted to check
> if there perhaps is an easy, clean and build-in option already available.
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser

When sorted in order in File Explorer, the loser ones should
be easy to delete.

Paul

Paul,

> When sorted in order in File Explorer, the loser ones should
> be easy to delete.

True.

But I tend to try to do without that kind of work-arounds - though I will
ofcourse look at them if nothing better is available (which I'm currently
trying to figure out).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote

| I've got a program which generates a wordpad document, which I than open
by
| double-clicking it.
| | The problem is that when the document is open and I re-generate the
document
| and double-click it I still see the old contents. To see the new contents
I | have to close the old, still-open document first.
| | Question:
| Is there a way to override this behaviour using a command-line argument ?
| Even just having two document windows open would be an improvement.
| | remark: I prefer /not/ to use taskkill.
|

It's more practical with these issues if you explain what
you're trying to accomplish. Then people can brainstorm
the whole process. It also helps to weed out preconceptions,
like the man who's trying to figure out how to avoid getting
his newspaper wet, wtihout explaining that the problem is
a spraying kitchen faucet and not rain.

Newyana2,

> It's more practical with these issues if you explain what
> you're trying to accomplish.

I thought I did that in the "the problem is" paragraph. Did I forget to
mention something ? If so, what ?

I even summed it up in the "question:" paragraph.

> Then people can brainstorm the whole process.

No thanks. I already did that.

> It also helps to weed out preconceptions,

It also attracts a number of people who have no problem replacing my
question with what they decide I /really/ wanted to know - and than waste
their and my time with solving problems I never had (and get all pissed-off
when I mention it).

But, if you think you know I have a preconception somewhere in there than I
would like to hear it.

> like the man who's trying to figure out how to avoid getting
> his newspaper wet, wtihout explaining that the problem is
> a spraying kitchen faucet and not rain.

:-) I've had it way to many times the other way around. Including people
questioning my decision to have a newspaper with me to begin with, and than
going off on tangents to what they think the best replacement for it is or
even how stone tablets where way superior. :-(

To re-phrase my initial post :

I've noticed that WorPad refuses to open a document (with new content) when
it already has that document open (but is showing the old, now gone(!)
content).

Is there a commandline switch to override that behaviour and either open the
document in a new window, or (preferrably) re-load the document.

Thats all I need to know. If that doesn't exist I'm going to work my way
thru a few alternatives myself first.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In message <utumha$1s51g$1@dont-email.me> at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 15:35:47,
R.Wieser <address@is.invalid> writes
[]
>It also attracts a number of people who have no problem replacing my
>question with what they decide I /really/ wanted to know - and than waste
>their and my time with solving problems I never had (and get all pissed-off
>when I mention it).
>
Yes, I've noticed that! (The ones who suggested you get the generating
prog. to create time-stamped versions haven't grasped what you want to
do/happen.)
[]
>To re-phrase my initial post :
>
>I've noticed that WorPad refuses to open a document (with new content) when
>it already has that document open (but is showing the old, now gone(!)
>content).
>
>Is there a commandline switch to override that behaviour and either open the
>document in a new window, or (preferrably) re-load the document.
[]
I suspect there isn't, for two reasons:
1. (As some have pointed out) WordPad is an editor, not just a viewer
(i. e. has the ability to write); this may be the root of some of the
problems. (The fact that the generating prog. _can_ create a new version
while WordPad has it open is slightly surprising.)
2. WordPad would have to _know_ that a new version has been created, and
load it automatically. Or are you saying that you'd be willing top open
it manually, when you know the other software has created a new version
of the file, but you'd rather not have to close it first?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"The wish of the lazy to allow unsupervised access [to the internet] to their
children should not reduce all adults browsing to the level of suitability for a
five-year-old." Yaman Akdeniz, quoted in Inter//face (The Times, 1999-2-10): p12

On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 17:35:39 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <utumha$1s51g$1@dont-email.me> at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 15:35:47,
>R.Wieser <address@is.invalid> writes
>[]
>>It also attracts a number of people who have no problem replacing my
>>question with what they decide I /really/ wanted to know - and than waste
>>their and my time with solving problems I never had (and get all pissed-off
>>when I mention it).
>>
>Yes, I've noticed that! (The ones who suggested you get the generating
>prog. to create time-stamped versions haven't grasped what you want to
>do/happen.)

I don't think that's fair at all.

>[]
>>To re-phrase my initial post :
>>
>>I've noticed that WorPad refuses to open a document (with new content) when
>>it already has that document open (but is showing the old, now gone(!)
>>content).
>>
>>Is there a commandline switch to override that behaviour and either open the
>>document in a new window, or (preferrably) re-load the document.
>[]
>I suspect there isn't, for two reasons:
>1. (As some have pointed out) WordPad is an editor, not just a viewer

Other editors can do it, (I mentioned one), so being an editor isn't an
impediment. It's much more likely that the creators of WordPad simply didn't add
the necessary code to support the desired function.

One possible workaround would be to write a wrapper for WordPad, but you'd
quickly get to a point where taskkill would likely enter the picture, and that's
a showstopper.

>(i. e. has the ability to write); this may be the root of some of the
>problems. (The fact that the generating prog. _can_ create a new version
>while WordPad has it open is slightly surprising.)
>2. WordPad would have to _know_ that a new version has been created, and
>load it automatically.

'Automatically' would probably be undesirable in the general case. In this
specific case, I'm not sure.

> Or are you saying that you'd be willing top open
>it manually, when you know the other software has created a new version
>of the file, but you'd rather not have to close it first?

J. P. ,

>>It also attracts a number of people who have no problem replacing
>>my question with what they decide I /really/ wanted to know
....
> Yes, I've noticed that! (The ones who suggested you get the generating
> prog. to create time-stamped versions haven't grasped what you want to
> do/happen.)

No, I've really gotten people who told me in my face that what I asked was
not what I wanted to know, and my /actual/ question was {blah, blah, blah}.

Paul, just like Char, didn't know the answer to my question (quite possible
there isn't one), skipped it and sought a possible other approach. Which
works for most situations/askers.

Newyana2 is leaning towards trying to find a meta question (dragnetting).
Which, to me, isn't there.

(and yes, I know that I'm stepping onto some toes there. Sorry about that.)

>>Is there a commandline switch to override that behaviour and either open
>>the
>>document in a new window, or (preferrably) re-load the document.
> []
> I suspect there isn't, for two reasons:

Do you know that you're the first one who actually adresses my question ?
:-)

> 1. (As some have pointed out) WordPad is an editor, not just a viewer (i.
> e. has the ability to write); this may be the root of some of the
> problems.

problems like ... what ?

And do notice that its current behaviour has its own problem : If the
document has been recreated it is (very) easy to overwrite it with the old
contents still present in wordpad.

> (The fact that the generating prog. _can_ create a new version while
> WordPad has it open is slightly surprising.)

No, not really. If wordpad can load the whole document than there is no
reason to keep the file open - other than create a write (and read?) lock.

> 2. WordPad would have to _know_ that a new version has been created, and
> load it automatically.

No, that (automatically) is not what I asked (having a document change under
your fingers while you're typing in it ? Yuck!). It only should happen
when tell it to do so.

> Or are you saying that you'd be willing top open it manually, when you
> know the other software has created a new version of the file, but you'd
> rather not have to close it first?

Done manually or thru launching the document should not make a difference.
But my question was about me double-clicking the newly-generated document,
so lets keep it at that.

You know, having to close the old document first before being allowed to
open the (same named) new one would not even be that much of a problem to
me. What is is that currently wordpad brings the old document to top when I
double-click the new document - and doesn't tell a soul about it not being
the new document. :-(

And thats just *begging* me to continue using the old while thinking its the
new data - with the non-zero chance that I overwrite the new data with the
(edited) old data.

IOW, I'm effectivily trying to fix an UI problem.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In message <utvam6$2b52s$1@dont-email.me> at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:19:59,
R.Wieser <address@is.invalid> writes
>J. P. ,

(John)
[]
>>>Is there a commandline switch to override that behaviour and either open
>>>the
>>>document in a new window, or (preferrably) re-load the document.
>> []
>> I suspect there isn't, for two reasons:
>
>Do you know that you're the first one who actually adresses my question ?
>:-)

I think I'm quite good at that (certainly at seeing when people are
answering not quite the question that was asked, which doesn't make me
popular).
>
>> 1. (As some have pointed out) WordPad is an editor, not just a viewer (i.
>> e. has the ability to write); this may be the root of some of the
>> problems.
>
>problems like ... what ?

Well, I'd have thought - since it is _capable_ of writing, that it might
"lock" the file, preventing anything else writing to it. But obviously
that's _not_ happening.
>
>And do notice that its current behaviour has its own problem : If the
>document has been recreated it is (very) easy to overwrite it with the old
>contents still present in wordpad.

Yes. Ideally, you want a true viewer - read-only - for the type of file
in question (.rtf?).

I don't suppose the prog. that's creating the file has its own viewer
for them, that you until now haven't been aware of? (What _is_ that
prog.?)
>
>> (The fact that the generating prog. _can_ create a new version while
>> WordPad has it open is slightly surprising.)
>
>No, not really. If wordpad can load the whole document than there is no
>reason to keep the file open - other than create a write (and read?) lock.

Yes, obviously takes its own local copy at the moment of opening.
>
>> 2. WordPad would have to _know_ that a new version has been created, and
>> load it automatically.
>
>No, that (automatically) is not what I asked (having a document change under
>your fingers while you're typing in it ? Yuck!). It only should happen
>when tell it to do so.
>
>> Or are you saying that you'd be willing top open it manually, when you
>> know the other software has created a new version of the file, but you'd
>> rather not have to close it first?
>
>Done manually or thru launching the document should not make a difference.
>But my question was about me double-clicking the newly-generated document,
>so lets keep it at that.

OK, so _you_ instigate the opening (in this case by double-clicking).

It won't help with the problem, but I'm just curious: what is the reason
you're looking at this document? Obviously to see what's changed, but
how big is the document - about a (WordPad) windowful? What sort of
change does the generating prog. usually make?
>
>You know, having to close the old document first before being allowed to
>open the (same named) new one would not even be that much of a problem to
>me. What is is that currently wordpad brings the old document to top when I
>double-click the new document - and doesn't tell a soul about it not being
>the new document. :-(

Yes, I can see that being infuriating!
>
>And thats just *begging* me to continue using the old while thinking its the
>new data - with the non-zero chance that I overwrite the new data with the
>(edited) old data.

Definitely a read-only viewer needed - ideally, one without the
behaviour of WordPad! (Or do you _want_ to actually _edit_ the file?)

I'm pretty sure there _are_ other .rtf editors (not sure about viewers)
around, but I don't know if they all have the same (won't open new copy)
behaviour of WordPad.
>
>IOW, I'm effectivily trying to fix an UI problem.
Not sure it's _quite_ UI.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Can you open your mind without it falling out?

On 3/25/2024 4:34 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I've got a program which generates a wordpad document, which I than open by
> double-clicking it.
>
> The problem is that when the document is open and I re-generate the document
> and double-click it I still see the old contents. To see the new contents I
> have to close the old, still-open document first.
>
> Question:
> Is there a way to override this behaviour using a command-line argument ?
> Even just having two document windows open would be an improvement.
>
> remark: I prefer /not/ to use taskkill.
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser
>
>

Perhaps you can launch Wordpad.exe from inside your program,
treating Wordpad as a viewer and not as an editor.

https://www.codeproject.com/Messages/146718/The-full-path-of-WordPad-exe

CreateProcess( "C:\\Program Files\\Accessories\\WordPad.exe", "D:\\myDoc.rtf",
NULL, NULL,FALSE, 0, NULL, NULL, &StartupInfo, &ProcessInfo ))

CreateProcess( "C:\\Program Files\\Windows NT\\Accessories\\WordPad.exe", "D:\\myDoc.rtf",
NULL, NULL,FALSE, 0, NULL, NULL, &StartupInfo, &ProcessInfo ))

That sort of thing. Then, when the conversion program has a new version to test,
it uses the %ProcessInfo to kill the old one.

Paul

I don't think Wordpad will work how you want. When it opens a document,
it loads the doc into buffer. If the target doesn't change, it uses
what is in its buffer. You could change the file itself many times, but
Wordpad will still show you the contents of its buffer. You have to
flush the buffer by loading in a new doc even if it is the same file but
changed since lasted loaded. Wordpad's File -> Open menu is not an
option since you pick the same target, so it still shows you its current
buffer content. There is no Close in Wordpad to force creating a new
buffer, and selecting the same target has Wordpad "facilitate" reduction
of resource and enhanced load speed by showing you the buffer it already
has for that file.

As a test using Notepad, I opened it, entered "hello there", and saved
to test.txt. I left that Notepad instance open, so it will continue to
show the old contents still in its buffer. I edited test.txt using
Notepad++ (or anything but Notepad) to "out to lunch", and manually
saved the change (File -> Save), and exited Notepad++. I then
double-clicked the same test.txt file, and the Notepad instance that
opened loaded the current file into its own buffer, so I saw "out to
lunch" in the new instance of Notepad, and "hello there" in the older
instance of Notepad. With Notepad, a new instance would load the
changed file.

I did the same test using Wordpad. On an .rtf file containing "hello
there", I opened it in Wordpad. While the Wordpad window was left open
(so it continued to show the contents of its buffer), I edited test.rtf
using Notepad++ to change to "out to lunch", and saved manually (if I
just close Notepad++ there was no prompt to save changes). I then
opened the changed file in Wordpad. Nope, the 2nd instance of Wordpad
still showed "hello there" instead of "out to lunch". Almost as though
the 2nd instance of Wordpad were reusing the buffer from the 1st
instance of Wordpad.

Does your program have to output to an .rtf file? Maybe it could
generate a .txt file since Notepad will use a new buffer in a new
instance of it but Wordpad doesn't. Or you hit F2 in Explorer on the
file to rename from .rtf to .txt. You don't want to reassign .rtf
filetypes to a different editor since that would change the handler for
all .rtf files. Okay, so rename the file to .txt before double-clicking
on it. If you cannot change the program to output to a .txt file
instead of an .rtf file, you can force the change yourself by changing
the extension.

Is there really any formatting in the output file by the program that
would require RTF, or is it all just plain text?

On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 18:46:39 -0500, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:

<<snipped some really good stuff>>

>
>Does your program have to output to an .rtf file? Maybe it could
>generate a .txt file since Notepad will use a new buffer in a new
>instance of it but Wordpad doesn't. Or you hit F2 in Explorer on the
>file to rename from .rtf to .txt. You don't want to reassign .rtf
>filetypes to a different editor since that would change the handler for
>all .rtf files. Okay, so rename the file to .txt before double-clicking
>on it. If you cannot change the program to output to a .txt file
>instead of an .rtf file, you can force the change yourself by changing
>the extension.

Or he could save it as "Filename.zxz" and only assign "*.zxz" files
to Wordpad.

"*.txt" already has "properties" assigned to it by Windows, a
randomish extension probably won't and probably will inherit them from
the program saving to it.
Probably. Mostly. Maybe.

>
>Is there really any formatting in the output file by the program that
>would require RTF, or is it all just plain text?

"*.zxz" files could contain formatted text, too, if you saved to one
using Wordpad.

J.

In message <7as60j1q5t79sv5eeisajr1btqp0uc3cv1@4ax.com> at Wed, 27 Mar
2024 01:14:54, John <Man@the.keyboard> writes
[]
> Or he could save it as "Filename.zxz" and only assign "*.zxz" files
>to Wordpad.
[]
I thought of that too, but (a) that assumes that the creating prog. can
save with an arbitrary extension, (b) it wouldn't solve the problem
specific to WordPad that, if you double-click on a filename it already
has open, it doesn't re-open.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you're worried that your house is haunted by a ghost and might need
exorcising, there's an easy way of working out if it is or it isn't: it isn't.
- Victoria Coren Mitchell, quoted in RT 2017/10/7-13

J. P. ,

>>Do you know that you're the first one who actually adresses my question ?
>>:-)
>
> I think I'm quite good at that (certainly at seeing when people are
> answering not quite the question that was asked, which doesn't make me
> popular).

I think I make myself unpopulair by putting effort into isolating the
problem first and than formulating an exact question to it. IOW, I'm not
giving the people who respond a lot of leeway in their answers ...

And me being able to point out the downsides of offered work-arounds does
not help either...

>>problems like ... what ?
>
> Well, I'd have thought - since it is _capable_ of writing, that it might
> "lock" the file, preventing anything else writing to it. But obviously
> that's _not_ happening.

:-) I /think/ I might have noticed the document-generating program throwing
an error because it could not open the write-locked file.

Than again, its hard to know how knowledgable the asker is, and he /could/
just be a PEBKAC or ID:10T, not knowing the front from its desktops back.
:-|

> Yes. Ideally, you want a true viewer - read-only - for the type of file in
> question (.rtf?).

Nope. I have zero problems with using a full-fledged editor. They come
with a few pro's that could be usefull*, even in this case.

* like editing/annotating and copy-pasting a few paragraphs elsewhere.

If I would wanted to have a read-only "viewer" than my question would have
been exactly that. Likely asking if wordpad has a commandline switch for
it.

> I don't suppose the prog. that's creating the file has its own viewer for
> them, that you until now haven't been aware of?

Nope, it doesn't have its own one. Why should it? Its output is just a
document that can be read by pretty-much every editor there is. Its like
asking if the DIR command has its own viewer. :-)

> (What _is_ that prog.?)

You know curiosity killed the kat, right ? :-)

Its not a commonly known program, which is why me mentioning it/its purpose
would not help you in the slightest. It takes information, formats it and
than writes it into the document I mentioned. If you want you can compare
it to "DIR > {some file}".

And yes, that (DIR > file) could be another situation in which I could run
into wordpads ignoring of the new files contents ...

Copying the document from somewhere else (like a thumbdrive) would be
another.

Or, in other words: The answer to the question I asked would be applicable
to more situations than the one I described.

> OK, so _you_ instigate the opening (in this case by double-clicking).

Yes. And I said so in my initial post.

> It won't help with the problem, but I'm just curious: what is the reason
> you're looking at this document?

Would you believe me if I said it was to pass the time ? No ? Than I won't
say it. :-)

> Obviously to see what's changed, but how big is the document - about a
> (WordPad) windowful?

That depends on the source. But normally its tens of screens full.

> What sort of change does the generating prog. usually make?

That also depends on the source. Often the changes are minor, but sometimes
they are major.

>>And thats just *begging* me to continue using the old while thinking its
>>the new data - with the non-zero chance that I overwrite the new data with
>>the (edited) old data.
>
> Definitely a read-only viewer needed -

Not if wordpad itself has the solution for what I described build-in - and
I'm still in the discovery phase in that regard.

If it doesn't than I will switch my focus to finding either work-arounds or
perhaps such a reader.

Though in that case I might just take a riched20 component, wrap it in a
dialog and be done with it. Yep, I'm a (hobby) programmer. :-)

> ideally, one without the behaviour of WordPad!

Why ? Thats throwing the baby away with the bathwater ...

> (Or do you _want_ to actually _edit_ the file?)

Normally, no. But at times I have had the need for it.

> I'm pretty sure there _are_ other .rtf editors (not sure about viewers)
> around, but I don't know if they all have the same (won't open new copy)
> behaviour of WordPad.

As earlier mentioned, I will start to consider other options* /after/ I have
concluded my current question. Yes, I'm odd like that. Sorry. :-)

* even though I already went thru inventorizing a few work-arounds/hacks
before posting my question, taskkill being one of them.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Paul,

> Perhaps you can launch Wordpad.exe from inside your program,
> treating Wordpad as a viewer and not as an editor.

Thats assuming I can rewrite "the program" ...

> That sort of thing. Then, when the conversion program has a new version to
> test, it uses the %ProcessInfo to kill the old one.

Yes, thats possible (I mentioned taskkill in my initial post).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In message <uu0q50$2p1un$1@dont-email.me> at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 09:52:46,
R.Wieser <address@is.invalid> writes
>J. P. ,
>
>>>Do you know that you're the first one who actually adresses my question ?
>>>:-)
>>
>> I think I'm quite good at that (certainly at seeing when people are
>> answering not quite the question that was asked, which doesn't make me
>> popular).
>
>I think I make myself unpopulair by putting effort into isolating the
>problem first and than formulating an exact question to it. IOW, I'm not
>giving the people who respond a lot of leeway in their answers ...
>
>And me being able to point out the downsides of offered work-arounds does
>not help either...

We're kindred spirits (-:
[]
>just be a PEBKAC or ID:10T, not knowing the front from its desktops back.
>:-|

I knew PEBKAC, but took me a while to figure out the second one!
[]
>> I don't suppose the prog. that's creating the file has its own viewer for
>> them, that you until now haven't been aware of?
>
>Nope, it doesn't have its own one. Why should it? Its output is just a
>document that can be read by pretty-much every editor there is. Its like
>asking if the DIR command has its own viewer. :-)

Well, that's related to my asking below what was your _reason_ for
wanting to monitor the changes. More below.
[]
>Or, in other words: The answer to the question I asked would be applicable
>to more situations than the one I described.

I can see that. However, I was addressing (though without providing a
solution!) the specific.
[]
>> It won't help with the problem, but I'm just curious: what is the reason
>> you're looking at this document?
>
>Would you believe me if I said it was to pass the time ? No ? Than I won't
>say it. :-)
>
>> Obviously to see what's changed, but how big is the document - about a
>> (WordPad) windowful?
>
>That depends on the source. But normally its tens of screens full.
>
>> What sort of change does the generating prog. usually make?
>
>That also depends on the source. Often the changes are minor, but sometimes
>they are major.

These questions were trying to find what your _specific_ problem is. I
appreciate you asked in more _general_ terms (basically "does WordPad
have a switch that allows it to re-open the same document it already has
open [if someone/something else has changed it]"), but I was trying to
find _why_ you wanted that: fair enough, it's good to ask the general
question (from the lack of responses that actually give the switch, the
answer would appear to be "no, it has no such switch"). I had the
feeling you wanted something like a "status window", so you could see
what was changing in real time, or at least in response to actions you
or the originating prog. take (hence my asking if the originating prog.
had a viewer). Since you're somewhat secretive about what the
originating prog. is (or does), I was unable to abandon the suspicion
that that's what you wanted! If it isn't, what _do_ you want - for/with
the output of this specific prog., not as a general WordPad question
(for which it doesn't seem an answer is forthcoming)?
[]
>Though in that case I might just take a riched20 component, wrap it in a
>dialog and be done with it. Yep, I'm a (hobby) programmer. :-)

[I was once, but not kept up to date (even though that's now decades!)
with how a lot of modern things work.]
[]
>As earlier mentioned, I will start to consider other options* /after/ I have
>concluded my current question. Yes, I'm odd like that. Sorry. :-)
>
>* even though I already went thru inventorizing a few work-arounds/hacks
>before posting my question, taskkill being one of them.
>
>Regards,
>Rudy Wieser
>
>
Yes, presumably a batch file of the form
kill existing WordPad
re-open WordPad with <file>
.. I share your reluctance to use kill - it's admitting defeat, as well
as you don't know what might not be tidied-up properly - and there's the
matter of identifying which task is WordPad. (Though the re-open line
may be able to assign a specific task number, or log it somewhere.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I'd rather trust the guys in the lab coats who aren't demanding that I get up
early on Sundays to apologize for being human.
-- Captain Splendid (quoted by "The Real Bev" in mozilla.general, 2014-11-16)

Couldn't you use a batch script as a wrapper to your program? In the
..bat file, run the program. After it exits, use a 'ren' command to
change the extension from .rtf to .txt.

<program>
ren <name>.rtf <name>.txt

Then when you double-click on the .txt file in Explorer, Notepad will
open. The test I did showed Notepad will work how you want.

However, you don't even need to use Explorer to double-click on the
file. In the batch script, when your program exits, have the script run
Notepad to open the file.

<yourprogram>
notepad <name>.rtf

Regardless of what is the extension, Notepad will load the text file.

Vanguard,

> I don't think Wordpad will work how you want. When it opens a
> document, it loads the doc into buffer. If the target doesn't
> change, it uses what is in its buffer. You could change the file
> itself many times, but Wordpad will still show you the contents
> of its buffer.

Yes, I know. But I specifically mentioned double-clicking the document
file - which *does* cause the wordpad program, showing the old document, to
put itself ontop and focussed.

IOW, it gets a signal someone tried to open a document with the same name it
already has, but than blithely ignores al that information.

> As a test using Notepad,
[snip]

Its not about /automatically/ updating the contents of wordpad when the file
changes, its about showing the contents of the file when the user
double-clicks it (a manual action).

> Is there really any formatting in the output file by the program
> that would require RTF, or is it all just plain text?

As so often, my question is not only aimed at my current situation, but also
at other, similar ones (trying to solve the problem at its root).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

J, P. ,

>> just be a PEBKAC or ID:10T, not knowing the front from its desktops
>> back. :-|
>
> I knew PEBKAC, but took me a while to figure out the second one!

I was a bit sneaky there, inserting that ":". I didn't want it to be /too/
obvious. :-)

> Well, that's related to my asking below what was your _reason_
> for wanting to monitor the changes.

Again, I do *NOT* want to /monitor/ any changes.

I just want to see the contents of the document I just double-clicked.
Thats all. I asked for it, it needs to happen.

> These questions were trying to find what your _specific_ problem is.

In a few words :? Explicitily asking for something to happen and
(silently!) being ignored (which has caused me problems in the past).

> from the lack of responses that actually give the switch, the answer
> would appear to be "no, it has no such switch"

I would already be glad with "I'm not aware of the existance of such a
switch" kind of replies - and than possibly /followed/ with suggestions of
other approaches.

> I had the feeling you wanted something like a "status window",
....
> If it isn't, what _do_ you want

Simple: double-click a file, the file gets loaded and displayed. Rinse and
repeat.

> for/with the output of this specific prog.

I see I made a mistake in mentioning the program which is the source of the
document. It allowed you to side-track yourself.

> not as a general WordPad question (for which it doesn't seem an
> answer is forthcoming)?

As far as I'm concerned the answer must still be sought in direct connection
to wordpad - as it is causing the problem, nothing else.

Pehaps I will use "taskkill" (or similar mechanisms) for a while and see how
I like it. Might even put something like it in a launcher program.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 3/27/2024 5:02 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
> Paul,
>
>> Perhaps you can launch Wordpad.exe from inside your program,
>> treating Wordpad as a viewer and not as an editor.
>
> Thats assuming I can rewrite "the program" ...
>
>> That sort of thing. Then, when the conversion program has a new version to
>> test, it uses the %ProcessInfo to kill the old one.
>
> Yes, thats possible (I mentioned taskkill in my initial post).
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser
>
>

Write a script to automate the looping behavior you desire.
Then it no longer matters, as you are saved the effort.

Paul