From: Andre Majorel (amajorel_at_teaser.fr)
Date: 2003-09-04 22:22:54
On 2003-09-03 18:23 +0200, Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote:
> > * it like to have the disass-output on stdout if no '-o' output
> > file is specified. Actual, nothing happens if no output file
> > is specified - IMHO quite confusing when using together with
> > output redirection...
>
> I've thought about this already, but none of the tools will currently
> produce output on stdout, so I'm not sure if this behaviour would be
> confusing.
I don't feel too strongly one way or another but I think I would
expect output to go to standard output.
I'm annoyed by tools like pdf2ps that write to a file by
default. The only kind of program where I find writing to
${filename%.ext1}.ext2 appropriate are mass converters like
mogrify(1). For most other applications, I prefer output to go
to stdout by default. This is especially true for da65 where the
output is text and often gets piped into less(1).
My two cents. Disclaimer: I'm a Unix weenie.
--
André Majorel <amajorel_at_teaser.fr>
http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo_at_musoftware.de with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : 2003-09-03 22:24:06 CEST