----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brian Ingerson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Sisyphus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 10:24 AM Subject: Re: out.make
> > On Tuesday, October 8, 2002, at 04:17 AM, Brian Ingerson wrote: > > > On 07/10/02 18:11 +1000, Ken Williams wrote: > >> > >> On Monday, October 7, 2002, at 08:38 AM, Sisyphus wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> It might be worth thinking about giving varying degrees of > >>>> the output > >>>> depending on command line options, or CONFIG directives. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Actually - now that I take the time to think about it - I > >>> don't see any > >>> problem with altering "$make > out.make 2>&1" to "$make". > >> > >> I agree. I'd rather remove layers between me and the build process > >> output too. If I want it in a file, I'd redirect it there. > > > > Well, I'm not so sure. The make file would print output on > > success as well as > > failure. I'm not willing to make that the default behaviour. Inline is > > suppose to be magic, like Perl. You don't get messages when Perl is > > compiling. I think I'll continue to write the messages to a > > file, but dump > > the file to the terminal if an error occurs. > > Oh, I just realized we may be talking about two different > cases. I'm speaking mainly about the module case, and I think > you may be speaking mainly about the script case. I do agree > that scripts shouldn't dump status/commands unless there's an > error. For modules, I'd prefer for the status/commands to be > displayed by default, but I probably won't argue too strenuously > for it if there's a simple way for me to turn it on. > Fwiw I still prefer having the output go to the screen, irrespective of whether it's a script or a module that I'm building. That's mainly a "convenience" consideration, for me - but I also don't see anything inconsistent with having it that way. Using Inline 'out of the box' you currently don't get to see any output of 'make' on the screen. For me, in every other situation that 'make' runs, I get to see its output on the screen. So I would argue (if I wanted to get picky) that the current default behaviour of Inline (in this regard) is out of step with conventional practice. But I don't want to get picky, and I *do* understand Brian's view of wanting it to run, as closely as possible, like a normal perl script. (Being able to see the output of make also helps fill in that long period where you're otherwise waiting for something to happen .... and wondering if it ever will :-) Cheers, Rob
