On 20 May 2011 14:54, Kurt H Maier <karmaflux_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't understand why. If you want stderr to be combined into
> stdout, suffix 2>&1 to your command. By default, I think different
> filehandles should land in different outputs.
I just think the stdout and stderr ought to be visible at the same
time. Or perhaps it would suffice to show stderr above stdout, or
automatically switch, or something.
> Typing in your
> command script in the input window and causing it to be executed
> should start a subshell. Captured output from stdout should be
> rendered in the output window, perhaps with a box around it, possibly
> numbered. Then you can go back to the input window to browse your
> command history, and selecting a history entry should be able to bring
> up the output of that command.
That sounds good to me. And you could head each 'output box' with the
command which produced it. (Though numbering could be useful too.)
I'm considering writing a 'next gen' 9term, if you'll excuse the
expression, and these ideas (a terminal 'canvas', and separated
streams) sound like they would be a very nice fit.
cls
Received on Fri May 20 2011 - 16:19:00 CEST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri May 20 2011 - 16:24:03 CEST