Re: "-dshow-available-fonts" vs. UNIX stdout?

[Ramana Kumar]

FWIW I agree that -dshow--available-fonts should write to stdout.
Is it typical to use that argument with any other arguments or an input file? (Maybe that should also be disallowed.)

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:38 AM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:

"Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> writes:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Harkins" <address@hidden>
> To: "lily-users" <address@hidden>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:36 AM
> Subject: Re: "-dshow-available-fonts" vs. UNIX stdout?
>
>
>> On 6/20/12, Ramana Kumar <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> probably lilypond isn't writing to stdout. maybe stderr?
>>
>> OK, let me refine the question. If it isn't using stdout, is there a
>> good reason why is it using something else? Or is it just a bug?
>>
>> hjh
>
>
> As a general rule, Unix orientated programs direct the main output of
> the program to stdout, and other informative messages to stderr.  The
> main output of lilypond is the pdf, which actually goes to a file.
> The informative messages (e.g. a list of fonts) continue to adopt the
> principle of going to stderr.

It would be arguable that an explicitly requested list of fonts is not
an "informative message".

For the record: if you call a typical GNU utility with bad options, it
outputs correct usage information to stderr.  If, in contrast, you call
it with --help, it outputs correct usage information to stdout.

In the first case, we are talking about diagnostics, in the second case,
we are talking about requested output.

--
David Kastrup

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user