The original post seems pretty clear that it indeed the last time entry for each machine name that they wanted It is in bold.
Of course we could simply print out the very same thing being used as input and call it a day, but that's treading awfully close to what a politician might do (which is quite close to nothing).
This is all well and good everybody makes mistakes such as this, or misunderstands posts. But to then turn around, and for the sole reason that one was unable to understand the query, accuse others of having multiple accounts to justify in their mind that they were in fact at a disadvantage is nothing short of childish.
Billrich: your claims that they are the same person are based on a self-deluded fantasy that the provided solution does not meet the request put forth by the OP, when, in fact, it does. Additionally, the very portion that you missed in your solution was bold.
And lastly, Yes, I know I provided no solution. But is it not true that no solution is better then a wrong one? At least I admit that I did not post a solution, there is no admittance to the clearly obvious fact that you omitted a few key requirements from your original response. This is no problem, a good number of your solutions, while provided in an unorthodox way do solve the OP's problem and they are content. However one cannot say they are perfect all the time, especially when one tries to cover so many threads; as you've said yourself, you are learning, we all are. It never hurts to concede when somebody is better at something, and I have to say from reading many of his posts (I think it's technically in the tens of thousands now, actually) I am not ashamed to say that his abilities with batch(especially regarding the NT extensions), and I'm sure many other things, is far greater then mine; the same goes for ghostdog and his reportoire of script languages; for me to not concede these truths is not a sign of strength in my abilities but rather a folly in that I cannot see my own weaknesses. When one cannot see their own weaknesses, they do not know whereupon to build strength.
hmm, that got a little weird... anyway, basically, when one finds one solution to be inadequate to the original query, it is not a sign of weakness to say, "hey, I suppose I read wrong or was mistaken", and the same goes for solutions that do work but a better alternative is presented (I believe ghostdog has outscripted me on one or two threads
, there is no reason the defend a inferior solution unless it has distinct advantages that are applicable to the Original Posters question.
curses, why must my posts be so long...
and lastly, the original posters follow-up question was answered.
