To err is human... but to really screw things up, code it in ChucK. ;)

yessss -- so true!! gonna save this to the List of Chuckian Wisdom.

Ah, okay. Well, that at least provides me a good plan of action. And I never knew about the &> operator on the command line, so thanks for that! I suppose that "chuck --probe 2> output" would work as well.

all (or at least most) of chuck system output/log is to stderr... I can't quite remember why... -- I think it's to avoid issues regarding buffering on the stdout stream. For example, it's possible for a crash to occur right after printing an important message to stdout, but the text may or may not actually print without an explicit flush. This does not happen with stderr. ChucK on, Ge! ~~~ Ge Wang Assistant Professor Center for Computer Research in Music and Acoustics (CCRMA) Stanford University http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~ge/ ~ Co-founder + Chief Creative Smule http://www.smule.com/ | http://twitter.com/gewang ~~~

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Brian Sorahan mailto:bsorahan@haivision.com> wrote:

Hi Mike,

It looks like the output of chuck --probe goes to stderr.

You can see the difference with $ chuck --probe >probe.out and $ chuck --probe &>probe.out

Cheers, Brian

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:06 AM, mike clemow mailto:michaelclemow@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Chuckists,

system: mac 10.7.3, chuck 1.3.1.3 (64 bit)

So, when I type `chuck --probe` I get the usual output to the console. Now, this has always been the case, however, I'm just now asking about it; chuck does not seem to be sending that output to stdout. I can't access it that way. In fact, if I want it in a file, I have to use script.

Where is that console output going? Why is it not going to stdout?

Sorry if this question has been answered before.

Best, Mike

http://michaelclemow.com http://semiotech.org

_______________________________________________ chuck-users mailing list chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu mailto:chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users

_______________________________________________ chuck-users mailing list chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu mailto:chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users

_______________________________________________ chuck-users mailing list chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users

Kassen, on unix stderr ends up in the console, the issue (if I understand correctly) is when you want to pipe the output of chuck --probe to a file. I just tried chuck -h > file.txt, and it's the same there, file.txt ends up empty and I get the help output on the console. I'd say it's a bug, plain and simple - unix apps don't commonly behave that way. /Stefan On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Kassen wrote:

On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 01:14:02AM +0800, Ge Wang wrote:

...

...

To err is human... but to really screw things up, code it in ChucK. ;)

yessss -- so true!! gonna save this to the List of Chuckian Wisdom.

Can we also revive "powertools can maim" as a slogan?

...

all (or at least most) of chuck system output/log is to stderr... I can't quite remember why... -- I think it's to avoid issues regarding buffering on the stdout stream. For example, it's possible for a crash to occur right after printing an important message to stdout, but the text may or may not actually print without an explicit flush. This does not happen with stderr.

That is all good and well, but not very satisfactory. We now need to wonder why Stderr does not end up in the console where it belongs in that configuration.

I'd want to see my errors, they are nice to collect and occasionally even useful for diagnostics.

Yours, Kas. _______________________________________________ chuck-users mailing list chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users

-- Release me, insect, or I will destroy the Cosmos!