On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopeziba...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 13 April 2012 11:04, Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> > wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> On 13 April 2012 02:40, Joe Buck wrote: >>>> I'm not interested in color output, and would turn it off if it were >>>> implemented (the escape sequences would just mess things up when capturing >>>> compiler output in log files). >>> >>> There's no reason it would have to do that. Git does a great job of >>> colouring output automatically when printing to a terminal but not >>> when redirected to a file or pipe. It also automatically pipes output >>> through a pager when it won't fit on the screen, and because it runs >>> the pager internally it still knows the final output is a terminal and >>> so outputs in colour. >> >> Yes, I do not think adding colored output is a challenge when done properly >> (e.g. checking that, for example, the output device supports ANSI control >> sequences even when it is a terminal, etc.) What I am concerned about is >> that >> the rush to have colored output may shadow the need to do it properly. > > If a diagnostics IR is a hard requirement to add color support, then > fine. Please, let me know once the diagnostics IR is implemented, and > I may consider to try to add color support depending on how complex > the IR code is. > > Please, also let me know if at some moment a simple implementation à > la grep becomes acceptable. > > My excuses to all the readers for such a long thread to reach such a > simple conclusion. I also want to apologize to Joe for > misunderstanding his position. I don't have anything else to say on > this subject.
I suppose we'd want to make the diagnostic machinery accessible by plugins so that IDEs could get an easier hand on things anyway. That way colorization could be achieved using a plugin, too. Richard. > Cheers, > > Manuel.
