Roeoender wrote:What advantage in this batch script gives using undocumented and obscure feature of "::" over using documented and widely known since BASIC times command "rem"?
REM is slower, because it is a COMMAND, and DOS read ALL the line when it executes it, don't ask me why. With "::" however, it IGNORES the line because DOS know that it is an useless label. And even for few μs I do that every time I write a batch file, because I just like to do the thing the right way.
Roeoender wrote:Even if this behaviour is supported by every M$ OS since DOS 1.0 you can't be sure it will work on future OSes.
It will, because it is just tricked labels.
Roeoender wrote:The funny thing is that main role of comments is to help readers to know what is going on, using "::" you do just the opposite .
Hey, we can use "#" instead of REM, and it doesn't confuse everybody. The only con for using that char is that I don't think that it is compatible with "lower" version of DOS. The double semi-colon "::" too doesn't confuse everybody, since you just have to look at what is written at the right to notice that it is a REM.