GNU bug report logs -
#62056
[PATCH] guix: Only issue erase-current-line sequence for ttys.
Previous Next
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
Hi Bruno,
Bruno Victal <mirai <at> makinata.eu> skribis:
> On 2023-03-16 21:30, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Bruno Victal <mirai <at> makinata.eu> skribis:
>>> (define (erase-current-line port)
>>> - "Write an ANSI erase-current-line sequence to PORT to erase the whole line and
>>> -move the cursor to the beginning of the line."
>>> - (display "\r\x1b[K" port))
>>> + "When @var{port} is interactive, write an ANSI erase-current-line sequence
>>> +to erase the whole line and move the cursor to the beginning of the line,
>>> +otherwise write a newline."
>>> + (if (isatty? port)
>>> + (display "\r\x1b[K" port)
>>> + (newline port)))
>>
>> We should avoid calling ‘isatty?’ every time, it’s too costly, which is
>> why there’s also ‘isatty?*’ somewhere that memoizes things.
>>
>> However, it seems up to the caller to check that before calling
>> ‘erase-current-line’. That seems to be the case within progress.scm and
>> in (guix status).
>
> guix/status.scm:471 defines a erase-current-line* which calls isatty?*.
> Does this mean that erase-current-line has to be “wrapped” every time
> we want it to have tty awareness?
‘erase-current-line’ is low-level and often the caller has already done
an ‘isatty?’ check before calling it (for instance in progress bars). I
think that’s the reason it doesn’t include that check.
> If that's not the case, perhaps we could change the signature of erase-current-line to:
> (define* (erase-current-line port #:optional tty?)
I don’t think so.
>> Could you see which use of ‘erase-current-line’ is causing problems?
>
> guix/scripts/substitute.scm:318
In this particular case, how about returning a different
<progress-reporter> depending on ‘isatty?’?
Thanks,
Ludo’.
This bug report was last modified 1 year and 80 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.