On Tue, March 25, 2008 10:26 am, Carl Lowenstein wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Lan Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, March 25, 2008 10:12 am, Carl Lowenstein wrote: >> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Lan Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, March 25, 2008 6:58 am, Paul G. Allen wrote: >> >> > Lan Barnes wrote: >> >> >> Why why WHY do programmers send informational messages to >> stderr? It >> >> >> makes >> >> >> it really difficult to script calls to the program that check >> for >> >> >> errors. >> >> >> What is it about the "err" in stderr that they don't understand? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > In addition to what SJS said, sometimes stdout will not work >> because >> >> > output may be redirected. An example might be a CGI script where >> >> stdout >> >> > would be redirected to the client browser. In such a case, it's >> >> usually >> >> > not desirable to send error messages to the client, so they are >> sent >> >> to >> >> > stderr, which is on the local machine. Many GUI apps may not be >> able >> >> to >> >> > display errors via stdout either, so stderr is used. >> >> > >> >> > stderr is generally the correct place to send error messages. >> >> > >> >> > PGA >> >> >> >> I don't think I made myself clear. Yes, errors should go to stderr. >> >> What >> >> I'm complaining about is when "hey, everything's going great :-)" >> >> messages >> >> are sent to stderr, making error checking in my calling scripts a >> joke. >> >> >> > >> > You don't want "everything's going great" messages to get mixed in >> > with the standard output, do you? Strange stuff in the output, which >> > in principle might be piped to another program, is worse than strange >> > stuff in the error messages. >> > >> >> As has already been remarked by me, you, and others on this thread, >> silence is a perfectly adequate "everything's going great" message. And >> if >> not, -V or (for rpm), -h can give reassuring and educational ourput to >> stdout. >> >> To repeat the subject line, "Sending anything but errors to stderr >> sucks." >> > > To paraphrase the subject line, "Sending anything but normal output to > stdout sucks." > > So that leaves us with the necessity to devise some other output > channel for the feelgood messages. >
stdfg? -- Lan Barnes SCM Analyst Linux Guy Tcl/Tk Enthusiast Biodiesel Brewer -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
