Re: Discussion for %display-auto-compilation-messages (and --no-auto-compilation-messages option)

[Sjoerd van Leent <svanleent@gmail.com>]

I see where you are going and personally, I like the suggestion.

In any case, couldn't there be an approach similar to those used with 
most logging frameworks. In GLib, there are the following options:

G_LOG_LEVEL_ERROR
G_LOG_LEVEL_CRITICAL
G_LOG_LEVEL_WARNING
G_LOG_LEVEL_MESSAGE
G_LOG_LEVEL_INFO
G_LOG_LEVEL_DEBUG

I have no clue yet which ports exist, aside from (current-output-port), 
(current-warning-port) and (current-error-port).

I imagine to create 5 virtual ports: (current-debug-port), 
(current-info-port), (current-message-port), (current-warning-port) and 
(current-critical-port). These would either be hooked up to the 
(current-output-port), except for (current-critical-port) which should 
be hooked up to (current-error-port).

The normal guile operation would be to have warning, critical and error 
messages to be fired. Guile should then get two additional options:

--verbosity=<level>, where level should be "debug", "info", "message", 
"warning", "critical" and "error".
--quiet, which suggests to skipp verbosity altogether and to display 
nothing anymore aside from writes to (current-output-port).

Guile should by default function in the "info" verbosity mode.

If verbosity is a nice fluid, one could change the verbosity level when 
deemed necessary.

And I would be happy to work this out.

On 03/02/14 22:13, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sjoerd van Leent <svanleent@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> -  scm_puts_unlocked (";;; compiling ", scm_current_error_port ());
>> -  scm_display (source, scm_current_error_port ());
>> -  scm_newline (scm_current_error_port ());
>> +  if (scm_is_true (*scm_loc_display_auto_compilation_messages))
>> +    {
>> +      scm_puts_unlocked (";;; compiling ", scm_current_error_port ());
>> +      scm_display (source, scm_current_error_port ());
>> +      scm_newline (scm_current_error_port ());
>> +    }
> FWIW, I think the approach should rather be to have a special port (a
> fluid) for such things, say, ‘current-notification-port’.  We’d simply
> replace scm_current_error_port by scm_current_notication_port above.
>
> The command-line option could be --quiet.  It would bind both
> current-notification-port and current-warning-port to a void port.
>
> WDYT?  Would you like to adjust the patch accordingly?
>
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.
>
>