On Jan 2, 2011, at 9:47, "Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool)" <lilypondt...@organum.hu> wrote:
> You should consider using a proper logging framework with different > logging levels. > That is a really good idea. There are a few gotchas that need addressing, for example the use of ly:message to emit warnings and such, but I'll take a look at a broader solution. David > > On 1/2/11, Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 02:25:57AM -0500, David Santamauro wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, 1 Jan 2011 10:19:18 +0000 >>> Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote: >>> >>>> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1074 >>>> Patches appreciated. Unfortunately I doubt that anything will >>>> happen unless you personally work on it, but it's "on the books". >>> >>> Question: Should the be_verbose_global variable control this? I'm not >>> sure a new command line argument is really needed as long as it is >>> agreed upon what verbose is and isn't. >> >>> I added a be_quiet_global in my sandbox but reading the thread makes me >>> think that simplification is needed and not an expansion. >> >> Since we already have a be_verbose_global variable, I can't >> imagine much serious objection to having a be_quiet_global. My >> initial guess would be that we want three different types of >> output: >> - verbose >> - normal >> - quiet >> >> However, this is definitely outside my depth. >> >> Cheers, >> - Graham >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lilypond-devel mailing list >> lilypond-devel@gnu.org >> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel >> _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
