currently the two concepts ("use of '-verbose'" vs "use of logpost()/verbose()") are obviously in the same realm but somewhat independent.
raising verbosity with "-verbose" will: - (obviously) make Pd more chatty, regardless of loglevels. e.g. some errors will only printed (as errors!) is "-verbose" is given- verbose() is coupled with "-verbose", as it will only ever print anything if the verbose level is not bigger than the number of "-verbose" flags present.
e.g. "verbose(0)" (aka 'PD_DEBUG') will print if no "-verbose" is givenbut "verbose(1)" (aka 'PD_VERBOSE') will only print if the "-verbose" flag is present and "verbose(2)" will only print if Pd is invoked with double-verbosity "-verbose -verbose"
i actually think this is not a bad idea (barring the actual values, sede the other thread), as "-verbose" might generate a sufficient amount of traffic between Pd and Pd-GUI to choke the system. even if the output isn't displayed (as the user just uses loglevel "2 normal").
i wonder, whether we should use the "-verbose" flag, to also suppress logpost() messages.
there's two reasons:- deprecate 'verbose()' in favour of 'logpost()' - so we only have to deal with a single beast
- better control about what is displayed in "-stderr" mode.when running Pd with "-nogui" (or "-stderr"), the terminal is currently flooded with high-verbose messages (compared to the Pd-console). obviously this is a hyperbole and depends on the actual patch. i do find it annoying though
with the latter in mind, we might even use multiple "-noverbose" flags to lower the verbosity (at least of the stderr) below post() - so that only errors would be visible.
mgsdr IOhannesPS: i don't know whether there's a question in this mail. but the entire verbose-handling is a bit annoying and i would like to make it easier to grasp.
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
