[GRASS-dev] Re: g.rename consolidation
hamish_nospam at yahoo.com
Mon Feb 26 10:58:56 CET 2007
[stderr is unbuffered, stdout is buffered]
Thanks for correcting me. This opens more G_message() options.
Martin Landa wrote:
> OK, it would be nice to describe *fixed* rules for module verbosity
> level, e.g. on the GRASS-wiki and use them when coding new module or
> patching the old one. It will prevent from inconsistency along GRASS
> modules in the future.
I agree. But I'd replace "fixed rules" with "[strongly] recommended
guidelines" and expand it to cover lots of consistency issues which the
SUBMITTING files don't cover. IMO hard rules have a bad tendency to
incorrectly force a grey question into a black or white answer, and
shift a debate from practical solutions to rhetorical bickering.
> I think it is better to use G_message() (or more advanced G_ fn) for
> *all* module messages. fprintf (stdout, ) should be used for the
> *output* not for the messages. It mixed two different things together
> which would be better to separate. I think that mixing messages and
> module output would cause problems in the future. All message should
> be controlled by GRASS_VERBOSE level or GRASS_MESSAGE_FORMAT.
I agree. Although I'm not sure what GRASS_MESSAGE_FORMAT does.
More information about the grass-dev