On Feb 1, 2014, at 00:06, lvqcl wrote: > Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > >>> Sure. But maybe it makes sense to write "WARNING" instead of an >>> "ERROR"? >> >> Well its an ERROR because the flac executable will exit with a non- >> zero >> exit code, so this condition can be caught in for example a shell >> script. >> >> If its only a warning, why would the executable return non-zero? > > But why should it return non-zero exit code? > > The input files are valid, all calculations are valid, but FLAC > returns an error... > IMHO it's counter-intuitive: I can't find another lossless encoder or > general-purpose file archiver that works in the same way.
It makes sense to have the option to return non-zero when the "compression" fails to "compress." As Erik pointed out, a script could use the return code to decide to delete the larger FLAC output file and keep the original input file since it is smaller (and equally lossless). However, I agree that it is rather strange to return non-zero by default, requiring a command-line option to defeat. I would expect it to be the reverse: off by default, and enabling non-zero on larger files via command-line option. Brian Willoughby Sound Consulting _______________________________________________ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev