Rudolf Adamkovič <salu...@me.com> writes: > Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@posteo.net> writes: > >> I do not think that it make sense to display that buffer when the code >> finishes successfully. I can see this kind of behaviour >> breaking/spamming automated scripts or export---code working in the >> past may throw error output into unsuspecting users. > > But the exit code has nothing to do with the standard error. > > Unix programs can, and often do, halt with non-zero exit codes while > producing error output containing important information, such as > deprecation warnings. Further, many programs use error output as the > alternative "anything but the result" stream. > > Preserving user data, instead of trashing it, data does not count as > "spamming ... unsuspected users". On the contrary! > > For example, I use a program for work that uploads data to a certain > 3rd-party server. It exits with a zero code but also shows extremely > important notices on error output. As an "unsuspecting user", if I used > Babel to run the program, I would end up in a trouble. > > So, we should never implicitly trash user-generated data, let alone > based on a "completely made up" belief that a non-zero exit code somehow > implies "no important error output". It does not. > > (I speak only about Unix-like systems here. Perhaps on other operating > systems, things work differently.)
Dear All, As explained in the above quote, it may be reasonable to display stderr in the shell (and possibly other) src blocks upon execution. + Stderr may contain important information even if the code block succeeds - Displaying stderr will raise *Error* buffer, which may or may not be expected or desired. What do you think? -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>. Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>, or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>