>nul in batch scripting

it prevents any output message.

It's just like > /dev/null in other languages. Surpresses an error message etc.

thx, so feasibly I could run it at the end of every command instead of using the @Echo off at the beginning if I desired greater flexibility and wasn't worried about size? or am I a little eensy-weensy bit off?

@echo off supresses the script from being displayed. it still displays any output generated by the script. >nul displays the script but supresses any output generated.

music2myear, here's an example of ye110man's good explanation. . . say the following command was being processed in a batch file:

@echo off would prevent "C:\>copy a:\*.* b:\*.*" from being shown, while >nul would suppress its output (which would be either "X files copied successfully" or an error message).


Edit: typo fixed

If you wanted greater control over the ECHO state, what you need isn't ">nul" but "@".

Regardless of the ECHO state, a batch file line that begins with the [@] character will not be displayed.