On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Kris Buelens <[email protected]>wrote:
> Sir Rob, I had a look at your promising "conditional-output-of-cms-command. > > Did you ever use it in practice? Because: most CMS commands do not produce > error messages when started in "command" mode. To get the reliability of > "command" (no execs called by accident) and the advantage of having error > messages being produced. For example: > Sir Kris, I think you're exaggerating a bit with "most CMS commands" - if that were the case we never got CMSTYPE HT ;-) I believe the reason for writing it back then was some local tool that was rather verbose also when things were fine. So basically I wanted to see the full output only if it had failed. There's obviously nothing against using my idiom with CMDCALL if you construct the input like that. I would find it unpleasant to do that inside the pipeline itself because it does not offer you the route without. It's a delicate balance between having something generic that can be used everywhere, and make it provide you with all the defaults for most situations. | Sir Rob the Plumber
