Ralph Shumaker wrote: > Carl Lowenstein wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Ralph Shumaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >>> 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. >>> > >>> > carl >>> > >>> >>> I know that Lan didn't ask this directly, but I think he's wondering >>> why >>> only two output channels were implemented. At least *I* am wondering >>> that. Why not stout, sterr, and stmisc? >>> >> >> You can have as many channels as you wish, limited only by the >> availability of file descriptors. (a small non-negative integer). >> > > Piquing my curiosity, "a small non-negative integer" is "small" up to > what? :) IOW, what is the limit?
ulimit -n >.. Regards, ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
