1. Will it be?
I was just wondering if we will be able to print to STDOUT without
opening a console.
2. Re: Will it be?
umm....
STDOUT *is* a console, more or less.
If a console does not appear, where do you expect the text to go?
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 21:09:33 -0700, Robert S <guest at rapideuphoria.com> wrote:
>
> posted by: Robert S <robsz1 at comcast.net>
>
> I was just wondering if we will be able to print to STDOUT without
> opening a console.
>
>
>
>
--
MrTrick
3. Re: Will it be?
STDOUT inst a console. It is whatever is on the end listening to STDOUT
Screen is a console.
When used as CGI, STDOUT would be linked to an STDIN on the web server.
Nothing gets written to the screen, therefor a console should NOT open.
4. Re: Will it be?
Okay.. guess I spoke to soon. I see now that there is makecon.exw for that.
That, and it works as expected without even using makecon
Only issue now, is the fact that it waits for me to press enter if there is an
error.
Not to easy to do when you can't see the console lol
5. Re: Will it be?
On 8 Oct 2004, at 14:24, Patrick Barnes wrote:
>
>
> umm....
>
> STDOUT *is* a console, more or less.
>
> If a console does not appear, where do you expect the text to go?
>
>
> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 21:09:33 -0700, Robert S <guest at rapideuphoria.com>
> wrote: >
> > posted by: Robert S <robsz1 at comcast.net> > > I was just wondering if we
> will be able to print to STDOUT without > opening a console. > > > >
Patrick, on some systems, default STDOUT can be assigned to go
somewhere else, like a file or printer or hardware port.
Kat
6. Re: Will it be?
I know that... That's what '>' does. Does a console window appear with
exw.exe even if STDOUT is redirected like that? I didn't know.
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 12:17:15 -0500, Kat <gertie at visionsix.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 8 Oct 2004, at 14:24, Patrick Barnes wrote:
>
> >
> > umm....
> >
> > STDOUT *is* a console, more or less.
> >
> > If a console does not appear, where do you expect the text to go?
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 21:09:33 -0700, Robert S <guest at rapideuphoria.com>
> > wrote: >
> > > posted by: Robert S <robsz1 at comcast.net> > > I was just wondering if we
> > will be able to print to STDOUT without > opening a console. > > > >
>
> Patrick, on some systems, default STDOUT can be assigned to go
> somewhere else, like a file or printer or hardware port.
>
> Kat
>
>
>
>
>
--
MrTrick
7. Re: Will it be?
On 8 Oct 2004, at 1:05, Robert S wrote:
>
>
> posted by: Robert S <robsz1 at comcast.net>
>
> Okay.. guess I spoke to soon. I see now that there is makecon.exw for that.
> That, and it works as expected without even using makecon
>
> Only issue now, is the fact that it waits for me to press enter if there is an
> error. Not to easy to do when you can't see the console lol
Ah ha! You getting in line to ask RobC about error trapping again?
Kat
8. Re: Will it be?
On 9 Oct 2004, at 10:02, Patrick Barnes wrote:
>
>
> I know that... That's what '>' does. Does a console window appear with
> exw.exe even if STDOUT is redirected like that? I didn't know.
I thought he wanted to redirect within the Eu program, not in a batch file or
shell config file. The readme that comes with Eu explains cases when
redirect is used in batch files. I don't know *nix.
Kat
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 12:17:15 -0500, Kat <gertie at visionsix.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 8 Oct 2004, at 14:24, Patrick Barnes wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > umm....
> > >
> > > STDOUT *is* a console, more or less.
> > >
> > > If a console does not appear, where do you expect the text to go?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 21:09:33 -0700, Robert S <guest at rapideuphoria.com>
> > > wrote: >
> > > > posted by: Robert S <robsz1 at comcast.net> > > I was just wondering if
> > > > we
> > > will be able to print to STDOUT without > opening a console. > > > >
> >
> > Patrick, on some systems, default STDOUT can be assigned to go
> > somewhere else, like a file or printer or hardware port.
> >
> > Kat
> >
> >
> --
> MrTrick
>
>
>
>
