I would find that very useful.

On 4 Oct 2020 at 21:12, Jordan Brown wrote: > On 10/4/2020 8:44 AM, William F. Adams via Discuss wrote: > Could we please preserve the code which allowed writing out only what the user has added > and wire it up to an option to write out that text via a menu in the interface? > > I would find that very useful. > > I think that would be one of the goals of a "printf"feature. > > On 10/4/2020 9:13 AM, nop head wrote: > It wasn't ever that though because strings are enclosed in quotes, it just > missed the ECHO: prefix. And there are lots of other messages now on > stdout, so without the prefix it is hard to pick out the user output.  > > If the program has full control over its output, it can emit its own prefix. Isn't that a step backward, having to put an identifying prefix on every echo?

  I would find that very useful.

Adding your own prefix is better in the long-term. For more complex applications, this might make it easier to generate and recognize the tags indicating that post-processing is required. It just breaks all the models which create output used by existing apps that post process the logs. In my case, it is not a big deal, now that I know that my apps that used to work will suddenly fail to work with a new version for no apparent reason. While I upgrade, I need to fix the models that create BOM input and probably simplify the post-processing to take advantage of the flexible prefix possibility. I suspect that the element of surprise caused much of the reaction to the change. As the saying goes "No one likes change, except a wet baby!" Ron On 2020-10-05 1:36 a.m., lar3ry@sasktel.net wrote: > On 4 Oct 2020 at 21:12, Jordan Brown wrote: >> On 10/4/2020 8:44 AM, William F. Adams via Discuss wrote: >> Could we please preserve the code which allowed writing out only what the user has added >> and wire it up to an option to write out that text via a menu in the interface? >> >> I would find that very useful. >> >> I think that would be one of the goals of a "printf"feature. >> >> On 10/4/2020 9:13 AM, nop head wrote: >> It wasn't ever that though because strings are enclosed in quotes, it just >> missed the ECHO: prefix. And there are lots of other messages now on >> stdout, so without the prefix it is hard to pick out the user output. >> >> If the program has full control over its output, it can emit its own prefix. > Isn't that a step backward, having to put an identifying prefix on every echo? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > Discuss@lists.openscad.org > http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org -- Ron Wheeler Artifact Software 438-345-3369 rwheeler@artifact-software.com

On 05.10.20 16:09, Ron Wheeler via Discuss wrote: > In my case, it is not a big deal, now that I know that > my apps that used to work will suddenly fail to work > with a new version for no apparent reason. It's already confirmed to be fixed. The just freshly merged feature for reading from stdin and writing to stdout even brings an extension for the test framework that should allow making sure it's not going to break that easily again. ciao, Torsten.