Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Hao Zhang wrote:
>
>> 2009/3/27 Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>
>>> If we don't have the eye candy on by default, most people won't see
>>> it, because they either won't know that it exists or won't be bothered
>>> to enable it. So why add it in the first place? Hao Zhang might as
>>> well spend his time on something more worthwhile in this case.
>>>
>> Stefan, I agree with you on the default show of the progress indicator
>> following by a switch to deactivate it, which I have thought oppositely in
>> my sketch design . I don't know whether there is a way to avoid the impact
>> on scripts. But, if there isn't any, I will prefer to consider CLI user
>> first.
>>
>
> Please excuse the guy that just showed up with a build error butting in,
> but am I missing something?
>
> if (option value is auto or unspecified)
> if (isatty())
> progress indicator to on
> else
> progress indicator to off
> else if (option value is on)
> progress indicator on
> else
> progress indicator off
>
> Won't this achieve a: many or most CLI users will see it, and b: 99.9%
> of scripts will be unaffected?
>
I think trying the "isatty" way is a good idea. There's no need to
embarrass script writers unless absolutely necessary.
Portability could be an issue (Windows, Windows, give me your answer, do
...) but it can't be worse than the other command-line bits, and we
already have a cmdline.c that's full of Win-specific ifdefs.
-- Brane
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1474813
Received on 2009-03-30 00:37:39 CEST