Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 18/08/2024 14:03, Matheus Tavares Bernardino wrote: >> ... >> term_clean_line()", the correct approach would be to modify >> "term_clean_line()" to return earlier "if (!isatty(1))". What do you >> think? > > On the face of it that sounds like a good idea but I haven't thought > too much about it. These messages are all going to stderr rather than > stdout. If we do go that way we'll need to adjust > launch_specified_editor() in editor.c to either suppress the hint or > terminate it with '\n' if stderr is not a terminal. Right. The true reason why I brought it up was because (1) it looked really funny to avoid doing that term_clean_line() under "--verbose" as well as under "--quiet" and the code should explain what reasoning backs such decision but it did not, and (2) that unexplained funny pattern repeated, which probably was a sign that it needed to become a small helper function with descriptive name to encapsulate the logic to decide when to call and when not to call the clean-line, which as a bonus would give a central place for us to explain the reason behind not cleaning the line under "--verbose" and the same for "--quiet" (as I suspect that these two want to omit the call for different reasons). Thanks.
