Am 15.10.2018 um 11:13 schrieb Urs Liska: > > > Am 15.10.2018 um 11:07 schrieb Jan-Peter Voigt: >> Hi Urs, >> >> I combine the answers: >> The *.edition.log file might be named differently - not .log - as this >> file has a purpose outside the debug-log realm. And this is the reason >> I'd vote against writing the edition-context-information in a global log >> file. > > Yes, that points in the right direction. In that sense the EE "log" is > comparable to scholarLY's export files. > >> But for all debug-logs piping them into one (optional) files makes >> absolutely sense. How this file should be formatted is another question. >> And sometimes it is helpful if the log is written before Lily crashes >> ;-) so it might be worth writing immediatly. > > That's also true, and I had thought about this. But with your previous > comment we can solve the issue. If we're separating package specific > export files from traditional logs the logs don't have to be sectioned. > So we can format them similarly to usual log files, have a package > identifier at the beginning of each entry and simply write them out > immediately. > > And if I think of it, most of that is already implemented in oll-core. > There we have the functions oll:log, oll:debug, oll:warn etc., combined > with the possibility to set the log-level. The only things we'd need is > the option to write the log or not, and the tagging of messages with the > package prefix. > > So I suggest you rename both the export filename and the option in the > EE, and we'll do the other thing separately. > OK I'll do that later and will think about the edition-context file structure. The paths shall be copyable ...
Jan-Peter _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user