On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Jim Sander wrote:
>
>
> > Anyway, Jim, I think you're still confused. LOGFORMAT/LOGFILE pairs don't
> > define log formats for logfiles in the way that you seem to expect. A
> > LOGFILE command just says "analyse this LOGFILE with the current LOGFORMAT".
> > It doesn't define a format for that logfile in general, which will hold if
> > you specify that logfile elsewhere.
>
> So in other words, the order of the logfile/format commands makes no
> difference to Analog? Thus these two examples would yield the same
> results in the output, no?
>
> LOGFILE log0 LOGFILE log0
> LOGFORMAT format1 LOGFILE log1
> LOGFILE log1 LOGFILE log2
> LOGFORMAT format2 LOGFILE log3
> LOGFILE log2 LOGFORMAT format1
> LOGFILE log3 LOGFORMAT format2
>
>
No, I didn't mean that (not even with your corrected version). What I meant
was that if you declare the same LOGFILE in a different place, it won't
remember what its LOGFORMAT was before, it will just use whatever the
current LOGFORMAT is at the time it is declared.
In your previous message, you seemed to be expecting that if you declared a
logfile on the command line, it would look up its format in the
configuration file. This is not the case. It just gets the default format.
--
Stephen Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~sret1/
Statistical Laboratory, 16 Mill Lane, Cambridge CB2 1SB, England
"Children from St Lawrence's School have buried a time capsule to mark both
the millennium and National Tree Week." Cambridge Town Crier, 16/12/99
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the analog-help mailing list. To unsubscribe from this
mailing list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe analog-help" in the main BODY OF THE MESSAGE.
List archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
