> I wonder whether we should keep discussing this on > abcusers, or do it in private? A public discussion does > have the advantage of keeping others up to date on what > we've done, and it invites their comments. I can think of > several cases where we might want to bring in the question > of what's the best way to do something, with the idea of > putting it into the standard.
I for one wouldn't mind if you kept the discussion on the list. I'd be quit interested in seeing the 2 abc2ps descendants converge, if only to save me from having to find out which one I like better ;) I have noticed that both of you have dropped the original abc2ps's transpose function. I guess there's a good reason for that, but I found it quite convenient. > One command-line change that I made, which others might > find useful: I changed the input/output so that jcabc2ps > acts like a conventional unix "filter". If there are no > input files, it reads from stdin. If there are no output > options, rather than writing to Out.ps, it writes to > stdout. This way, I can use preprocessors (like abcpp) and > postprocessors (various perl programs I have that munge > postscript), without the mess of creating intermediate > files and then trying to make sure that they're cleaned up. > > I found that this really simplified the cleanup job for my > tune finder's conversions. If you don't need to produce > intermediate files, you don't have much cleanup. > > I have the impression that, at least on unixoid systems > (which now includes Macs), lots of others have uses for > pre- and post-processors, so many users would find this > useful. Being able to use stdin and stdout is nice, yes. At least for stdin, I would have thought however that just givin a filename of '-' would have sufficed to achieve that. Actually, I don't know whether this is a feature of bash, Linux or Unix variants in general, but I guess every environment in which reading from stdin makes sense would provide a similar means!? I've also noticed that with the current version, jcabc2ps ignores the output options and wrtites to stdout in all cases. Is this intended, a bug, or am I doing something wrong? I found especially '-o =' quite useful at times. > I suppose you might want another option to suppress ps > output if you don't like the -/+ convention that I adopted. > Or you could use the backwards approach that a lot of > people seem to like, with -o meaning produce ps and +o > meaning don't produce ps output. This strikes me as a bit > perverse, but it's common enough these days. Actually I wouldn' mind either way, but it would be nice if both programs, while they still exist separately, behaved in the same way in that respect. Greetings, Manuel To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
