[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Redirectable octave?
From: |
Michael Goffioul |
Subject: |
Re: Redirectable octave? |
Date: |
Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:35:10 +0200 |
On 10/18/07, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
> | OK. I'll continue this way and come with a full patch later. Just a small
> | question: would this API go into an existing header or would you prefer
> | a separate one?
>
> I'd say define these symbols in a separate header.
OK.
> Also, should we consider renaming octave_stdout (the one that normally
> goes through the pager) to avoid confusion?
That's why I use the longer octave_stdio_xxx syntax. If you're OK
with renaming octave_stdout, then I'd use that syntax instead.
However, I don't know whether octave_stdout is actually used
outside octave itself.
Michael.
- Redirectable octave?, Michael Goffioul, 2007/10/15
- Re: Redirectable octave?, Michael Goffioul, 2007/10/16
- Re: Redirectable octave?, John W. Eaton, 2007/10/16
- Re: Redirectable octave?, Michael Goffioul, 2007/10/17
- Re: Redirectable octave?, John W. Eaton, 2007/10/17
- Re: Redirectable octave?, Michael Goffioul, 2007/10/18
- Re: Redirectable octave?, Michael Goffioul, 2007/10/18
- Re: Redirectable octave?, John W. Eaton, 2007/10/18
- Re: Redirectable octave?, Michael Goffioul, 2007/10/18
- Re: Redirectable octave?, John W. Eaton, 2007/10/18
- Re: Redirectable octave?,
Michael Goffioul <=
- Re: Redirectable octave?, Michael Goffioul, 2007/10/18