Re: A function to print instead of $(warning ) or $(error )

[Ken Smith]

On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 01:59:28PM -0600, Dill, John wrote:
> >> The only quirk in this solution is that all output goes to stderr
> >> instead of stdout.
> >
> >And, it uses shell which is starting processes and is therefore a lot
> >slower than a builtin function would be in case you care about
> >performance.
> 
> I notice a bit of slowdown in my work since I use this technique to echo 
> autoconf like messages.  The messages just drift by a little bit more slowly. 
>  On a fast linux machine it's barely noticeable, but on my old 300 Mhz 
> windows using MinGW, it's a little more drastic.
> 
> I appreciate the idea of keeping minimal interfaces, but to value that over 
> functionality which is more fundamental than an 'error' or 'warning' function 
> to begin with seems contradictory.  You don't need 'error' and 'warning' if 
> you have a generic 'print' function.  You can certainly redefine them using a 
> generic 'print' function.

It may be difficult to define error and warning using a generic print
function because they print line numbers.  However, I agree with your
sentiment.  Why resist adding such functions?


  Ken Smith