From: Andre Majorel (amajorel_at_teaser.fr)
Date: 2003-09-04 00:44:52
On 2003-09-03 22:41 +0200, Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 10:22:54PM +0200, Andre Majorel wrote:
> > 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.
>
> If ca65 would write the file to stdout, many folks wouldn't be happy,
> because this would mess up most terminals. Similar for ld65.
As in gzip,
if (isatty (stdout))
{
fputs ("can't write object code to a terminal\n", stderr);
exit (1);
}
But it's a moot point since cc and ld have historically never
written to standard output and no one expects them to.
> > This is especially true for da65 where the
> > output is text and often gets piped into less(1).
>
> da65 (and maybe cc65) are the only ones I can think of. But when
> changing that, some of the tools write to stdout and others don't. I'm
> still not convinced.
I contend that most experienced Unix users think in terms of
"this is a disassembler, so it must write to stdout by default",
not
"cc65, ca65 and ld65 write to a file, so da65 must do the same".
I can't prove this but I can point out that GNU objdump(1)
agrees and, AFAICS, so do Solaris and AIX dis(1).
Naturally, people who are used to other systems might think
differently. In the DOS world, the "progname infile outfile"
model seems to be more common.
--
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 : 2003-09-04 00:47:23 CEST