Re: (re?)directing compile output to a file

[Joe Neeman]

On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 06:56 +0800, address@hidden wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue Aug 10 3:26 , Joe Neeman sent:
> 
>         On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 07:39 -0500, Jonathan Kulp wrote:
>         > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:24 AM, David Currie
>         <address@hidden> wrote:
>         > > I am a musician and a programmer.
>         > >
>         > > How does one redirect/direct (lilypond) compile output to
>         a file and not stdout
>         > > using command line options(or otherwise).
>         > >
>         > 
>         > What you want, I think, is the -V command line option, but I
>         haven't
>         > ever done this on Windows. I suspect if you use a command
>         prompt and
>         > do lilypond -V filename.ly it will do what you want.
>         Capturing it in a
>         > log file is then a matter of redirecting the output in the
>         usual dos
>         > prompt way (which I don't know how to do, sorry).
>         
>         Or you could use the -dgui argument to lilypond.
>         
>         Thanks for your response,
>         
>         I have tried lilypond -dgui filename.ly  but   
>         
>           GNU LilyPond 2.12.3 
>         
>         STILL appears on the screen (even though all other (error)
>         text goes to filename.log)
>         
>         Now, 
>         
>           lilypond -dhelp             advises that 
>         
>           lilypond -dlog-file FOO filename.ly   would write output to
>         FOO.log.
>         
>         But this does not work - it says cannot find file FOO.
>         
>         No amount of operating system redirecting stops output to the
>         screen.
>         
>         There must be some way to output ALL output (stout,stderr,
>         any ) to a file.

Then I'm not sure. Isn't there some way, in windows, to check what
arguments are used when you drag a file to a shortcut? Apart from that,
according to the lilypond source, it will only print out the version
string if stdin is a terminal. So perhaps you could get it to go away by
providing a different stdin.

By the way, you're best off copying future responses to the mailing
list, as people there may know better than me.

Cheers,
Joe