[cheesecake-users] output question

Grig Gheorghiu grig.gheorghiu at gmail.com
Sat Jul 22 22:21:17 PDT 2006

On 7/22/06, will guaraldi <willg at bluesock.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006, Micha? Kwiatkowski wrote:
> >
> > I don't like the way random messages get mess up along the lines of
> > actual score. IndexRequiredFiles may be the first but imagine how the
> > output would look when other 2+ indexes would add their own verbose
> > information to the output. That's the reason I initially put that
> > information on the end, below the score. What are the benefits of having
> > info just below initial score, in the middle of results?
> The information isn't random, it's explanatory.  It explains where the
> score for that specific index came from.  Having it at the end loses the
> context and I think loses a lot of the meaning as well.  I understand that
> it makes the final report very long, but I think that's the whole point of
> connecting it with the verbose flag and not making it print the
> explanation by default.
> The index scores don't mean anything without some explanation of where
> they come from and how they're calculated.  You could put that information
> in the documentation, but that won't explain the score for a particular
> run.
> If that's not what you mean by "verbose", then I guess I'm not sure what
> the "verbose" flag should do.
> /will

I was the one who initially suggested putting the detailed information at
the end of the index computation, although I had in mind doing this on a
per-index basis (the 3 major indexes) and not at the very end of the output.

Looking at the output obtained with Will's patch, I think it's actually
better and more explanatory for the user to have this information closer to
the actual sub-index computation (for example seeing the required files
present/absent close to the required files score). Since this is only the
case when the verbose flag is specified, I think we can err on the side of
being more explanatory, as opposed to having a nicer output.

I also like Michal's latest format, with the required files information
prefixed by [required_files] for example. So maybe we can keep this format,
but put the information close to the score, as in Will's patch. This way we
get nicer output, and more explanatory at the same time.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists2.idyll.org/pipermail/cheesecake-users/attachments/20060722/d2c25cb4/attachment.htm 

More information about the cheesecake-users mailing list