4:17 p.m.
Hi,
I'm noticing the following. First:
<hansl>
open australia
append denmark --quiet # still get message!
</hansl>
... despite the doc saying that the quiet option should lead to no printout.
Secondly, it would also be useful if 'store' had such an option in the
first place. The use case is the same as for append, namely that in some
scripts/packages the printout shouldn't be cluttered with more or less
meaningless path echo information.
This is with a snapshot from two weeks ago.
thanks
sven
5:47 p.m.
On Sun, 24 Oct 2021, Sven Schreiber wrote:
Hi,
I'm noticing the following. First:
<hansl>
open australia
append denmark --quiet # still get message!
</hansl>
... despite the doc saying that the quiet option should lead to no printout.
True, the doc is not accurate on that point. Nonetheless, printing a
bare confirmation of the location from which the file was loaded is
by design -- other than that, the rest of the usual printed output
from "append" is supressed. I suppose there could be a --silent
option that truly prints nothing.
Secondly, it would also be useful if 'store' had such an
option in the
first place. The use case is the same as for append, namely that in some
scripts/packages the printout shouldn't be cluttered with more or less
meaningless path echo information.
That information is not meaningless if the command didn't specify an
absolute path. But maybe we could arrange to suppress it if an
absolute path was given.
Allin
8:08 p.m.
Am 24.10.2021 um 19:47 schrieb Allin Cottrell:
On Sun, 24 Oct 2021, Sven Schreiber wrote:
> ... despite the doc saying that the quiet option should lead to
no
> printout.
True, the doc is not accurate on that point. Nonetheless, printing a
bare confirmation of the location from which the file was loaded is by
design -- other than that, the rest of the usual printed output from
"append" is supressed. I suppose there could be a --silent option that
truly prints nothing.
Yes, I think that would be good. IMO, when using such commands in
internal functions, there should be a way to really have the internal
function do its work silently, without the included commands interfering
in the output that's visible to the end user. (Unless something goes wrong.)
> Secondly, it would also be useful if 'store' had such an
option in the
> first place. The use case is the same as for append, namely that in some
> scripts/packages the printout shouldn't be cluttered with more or less
> meaningless path echo information.
That information is not meaningless if the command didn't specify an
absolute path. But maybe we could arrange to suppress it if an absolute
path was given.
Sorry, I didn't mean "meaningless" in general, but in the context of
certain (= "some") scripts or packages. Again, the point is that a
function author should have control over whether something like that is
printed out. I'm not sure the absolute path condition would ensure that.
Wouldn't a quiet (or silent) option also be easier to add?
thanks
sven
5:50 a.m.
Am 24.10.2021 22:08 schrieb Sven Schreiber:
Am 24.10.2021 um 19:47 schrieb Allin Cottrell:
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2021, Sven Schreiber wrote:
>> ... despite the doc saying that the quiet option should lead to no
>> printout.
>
> True, the doc is not accurate on that point. Nonetheless, printing a
> bare confirmation of the location from which the file was loaded is by
> design -- other than that, the rest of the usual printed output from
> "append" is supressed. I suppose there could be a --silent option that
> truly prints nothing.
Yes, I think that would be good. IMO, when using such commands in
internal functions, there should be a way to really have the internal
function do its work silently, without the included commands
interfering
in the output that's visible to the end user. (Unless something goes
wrong.)
>> Secondly, it would also be useful if 'store' had such an option in
>> the
>> first place. The use case is the same as for append, namely that in
>> some
>> scripts/packages the printout shouldn't be cluttered with more or
>> less
>> meaningless path echo information.
>
> That information is not meaningless if the command didn't specify an
> absolute path. But maybe we could arrange to suppress it if an
> absolute
> path was given.
Sorry, I didn't mean "meaningless" in general, but in the context of
certain (= "some") scripts or packages. Again, the point is that a
function author should have control over whether something like that is
printed out. I'm not sure the absolute path condition would ensure
that.
Wouldn't a quiet (or silent) option also be easier to add?
Identifying whether an absolute or relative path was passed sounds like
over-engineering to me ;-) Sven's proposal to add a --silent flag sounds
handy to me, too.
Best,
Artur
8:19 a.m.
Am 26.10.2021 um 07:50 schrieb atecon:
Am 24.10.2021 22:08 schrieb Sven Schreiber:
>
> Sorry, I didn't mean "meaningless" in general, but in the context of
> certain (= "some") scripts or packages. Again, the point is that a
> function author should have control over whether something like that is
> printed out. I'm not sure the absolute path condition would ensure that.
> Wouldn't a quiet (or silent) option also be easier to add?
 Identifying whether an absolute or relative path was passed sounds
like over-engineering to me ;-) Sven's proposal to add a --silent flag
sounds handy to me, too.
If we agree in principle, then I can put this on the tracker. But maybe
there is no consensus about the silent option?
thanks
sven
8:16 p.m.
Am 09.11.2021 um 09:19 schrieb Sven Schreiber:
If we agree in principle, then I can put this on the tracker. But
maybe
there is no consensus about the silent option?
It's now ticket https://sourceforge.net/p/gretl/feature-requests/165/
thanks
sven
1135
days inactive
1154
days old
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Allin Cottrell -
atecon -
Sven Schreiber