On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 01:59:28PM -0600, Dill, John wrote: > >> The only quirk in this solution is that all output goes to stderr > >> instead of stdout. > > > >And, it uses shell which is starting processes and is therefore a lot > >slower than a builtin function would be in case you care about > >performance. > > I notice a bit of slowdown in my work since I use this technique to echo > autoconf like messages. The messages just drift by a little bit more slowly. > On a fast linux machine it's barely noticeable, but on my old 300 Mhz > windows using MinGW, it's a little more drastic. > > I appreciate the idea of keeping minimal interfaces, but to value that over > functionality which is more fundamental than an 'error' or 'warning' function > to begin with seems contradictory. You don't need 'error' and 'warning' if > you have a generic 'print' function. You can certainly redefine them using a > generic 'print' function.
It may be difficult to define error and warning using a generic print function because they print line numbers. However, I agree with your sentiment. Why resist adding such functions? Ken Smith _______________________________________________ Help-make mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-make
