Re: output to standard error?

2001-03-19 Thread Hrvoje Niksic 

"Eddy Thilleman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Wget sends its output to standard error. Why is that?

"It seemed like a good idea."

The rationale behind it is that Wget's "output" is not real output,
more a progress indication thingie.  The real output is when you
specify `-O -', and that goes to stdout.

Francois Pinard once suggested that Wget prints its progress output to
stdout, except when `-O -' is specified, when progress should go to
stderr.  This is a bit harder to document, but is much better at
meeting the users' expectations and not violating the Principle of
Least Surprise.

Re: output to standard error?

2001-03-19 Thread Andre Majorel 

On 2001-03-20 00:25 +0100, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
 "Eddy Thilleman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
  Wget sends its output to standard error. Why is that?
 
 "It seemed like a good idea."
 
 The rationale behind it is that Wget's "output" is not real output,
 more a progress indication thingie.  The real output is when you
 specify `-O -', and that goes to stdout.
 
 Francois Pinard once suggested that Wget prints its progress output to
 stdout, except when `-O -' is specified, when progress should go to
 stderr.

Shrug. Anyone who wants to capture the output of a program for
unattended operation (which is what I think Eddy wants)
generally has to catch both stdout and stderr anyway. So does it
matter much how much of it goes to stdout vs. stderr ?

If you're doing wget  21, there's no surprise.

If your shell is command.com, you might see things differently.
;-)

-- 
Andr Majorel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/