[PD-dev] [ pure-data-Patches-3494768 ] verbose() leaves blank lines when filtered out in Pd window

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

If post(), error(), etc. are your examples, then verbose() should have no level argument, just the fmt, then it could post at level 4.  That makes sense to me. If verbose() is meant to post messages at varying levels, then it should use the same numbering scheme as everything else, i.e.

logpost(1) == verbose(1)

.hc

On Feb 27, 2012, at 10:15 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> i move that to the list, as it makes discussion easier.
> 
> On 2012-02-27 15:32, SourceForge.net wrote:
>>> Comment By: Hans-Christoph Steiner (eighthave)
>> idea to change to loglevel+4 to loglevel+3.  Either leave verbose()'s
>> custom level numbering the same, or make it the same as the Pd window,
>> error(), logpost(), etc..  I still really think the +4 on the loglevel
>> doesn't make sense.
> 
> i totally agree that "+4" doesn't make sense at all.
> i wonder though what you mean by "leave verbose()'s
> custom level numbering the same". the same as what?
> 
> from the start of verbose() (which was long before the "custom"
> loglevels of logpost()) the idea was as follows:
> verbose() should be used for messages that are more verbose (==less
> important) than post().
> you can increase verbosity by passing one or more "-verbose" arguments
> to the cmdline.
> when raising verbosity, you will suddenly see messages that you did not
> see with a lower verbosity.
> 
> "verbose(0)" is meant to be a default (low) verbosity, that is still
> less important than post()
> keep in mind that this was all before the loglevel stuff; from that pov
> it would make no sense at all to have verbose(1) to be more important
> than post() and verbose(3) to be less important than post().
> instead, all ordinary (that is: >0) verbose-levels are always considered
> less important than the "show always" post.
> 
> this should still hold true!
> 
> 
> furthermore, verbose(0) was meant to have a "similar" verbosity than
> post() (but - again - never a higher priority).
> 
> somebody (while i remember you saying that the arbitrary number '4' was
> introduced by me after much fighting with you and miller, i still cannot
> remember that; what i can remember is that i wanted verbose() to use the
> loglevel implementation) introduced a random offset of "4", which makes
> verbose(0) to only output things if you switch the loglevel to "all",
> rather than "debug", which is precisely the loglevel for which verbose()
> was meant.
> 
> the only reason i see to keep verbose() at "+4" is to discourage it's
> use. (which might be what you want, if you think that loglevel() is more
> easily understandable)
> 
> 
> leaving our differences aside, what i think could be an interesting
> change in semantics here, is to output all verbose() messages at
> loglevel:=3 (debug) though still apply the filtering based on verbosity.
> e.g. both verbose(0, "foo") and verbose(1, "bar") will show at "debug"
> level, but the latter will only show up if the user manually raised the
> verbosity with the "-verbose" flag to at least "1".
> 
> and yes, it makes sense to differentiate between a gui-loglevel and a
> system-verbosity, if you generate loads and loads of messages for
> debugging which you normally would like to never see on the wire between
> pd & pd-gui.
> 
> g
> fasdmr
> IOhannes
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAk9LnfoACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvQp6ACgyXpUe5tlt02EWXEXn+KKljf/
> DoQAoPNxLBHmQTFCd5Y7+xBHexfeS7sH
> =jTRm
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-dev mailing list
> Pd-dev at iem.at
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"A cellphone to me is just an opportunity to be irritated wherever you are." - Linus Torvalds