Suggestion: we could see if there are other cases where --quiet is not as quiet as some might like. If so, maybe add a "none" or "zero" setting for the set variables messages and verbose: the effect would be to make --quiet really quite for all affected commands (and may be in a few cases, functions). This might be more efficient than adding --silent options to multiple commands.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Well, there are already some commands which take a --silent option. Do you mean this should be changed in general? (Presumably with a transition phase.) What I mean is: Should this potential new mechanism or switch also apply to those commands that already have a --silent option; such that in the long term "silent" would become obsolete?
If that's not what you mean, then I think I find it a bit confusing that there would be separate ways to affect different commands to achieve the same thing.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
It's not my intention to make the --silent option redundant. With some commands it makes sense to have both a --quiet option (reduced output) and a --silent option ("I don't even want to see the reduced output"). With some other commands, the only printed output that remains when --quiet is given is a simple confirmation (typically, a statement of the full path of a file that has been read or written), and the notional "set verbose zero" would quell just this sort of printing.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I still see a bit of overlap or arbitrariness between "silent" and "set verbose zero", but I don't really care much. If "set verbose zero" leads to "append ... --quiet" and "store ... --quiet" not printing out anything, then I'm happy.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
What's the "this" in your question here? The "set verbose none" idea, or a "--silent" option, or both?
To be honest, I don't quite remember what I was doing when I stumbled over this behavior back in 2021. Presumably wanting to capture some output from a script (maybe a matrix content?), where the additional and unexpected printout was cluttering the resulting string / text file.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
(1) Checking the doc, I see that "append" offers the --quiet option, and it doesn't print anything if that option is given in conjunction with "set verbose off".
(2) The "store" command doesn't offer --quiet but arguably it should not print its confirmatory one-liner, "wrote filename" , under "verbose off". That's now the case in today's git.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Thanks, Allin, I think that completely fulfills the requested feature. We can clarify the necessity of "set verbose off" (or "set messages off") in the 'append' doc, and then we can close this ticket.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
It seems we kind of lost track of the still needed doc clarification, so it didn't make it into gretl 2023c it seems. Well, no big deal, and I hope to find time to apply this in the next few days.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Suggestion: we could see if there are other cases where --quiet is not as quiet as some might like. If so, maybe add a "none" or "zero" setting for the set variables messages and verbose: the effect would be to make --quiet really quite for all affected commands (and may be in a few cases, functions). This might be more efficient than adding --silent options to multiple commands.
Well, there are already some commands which take a --silent option. Do you mean this should be changed in general? (Presumably with a transition phase.) What I mean is: Should this potential new mechanism or switch also apply to those commands that already have a --silent option; such that in the long term "silent" would become obsolete?
If that's not what you mean, then I think I find it a bit confusing that there would be separate ways to affect different commands to achieve the same thing.
It's not my intention to make the --silent option redundant. With some commands it makes sense to have both a --quiet option (reduced output) and a --silent option ("I don't even want to see the reduced output"). With some other commands, the only printed output that remains when --quiet is given is a simple confirmation (typically, a statement of the full path of a file that has been read or written), and the notional "set verbose zero" would quell just this sort of printing.
I still see a bit of overlap or arbitrariness between "silent" and "set verbose zero", but I don't really care much. If "set verbose zero" leads to "append ... --quiet" and "store ... --quiet" not printing out anything, then I'm happy.
If this "set verbose none" (or zero) idea is still on the table, maybe something for a coding session?
Is there still any serious interest in this? Or to put it differently: can anyone argue that it's really worth pursuing?
What's the "this" in your question here? The "set verbose none" idea, or a "--silent" option, or both?
To be honest, I don't quite remember what I was doing when I stumbled over this behavior back in 2021. Presumably wanting to capture some output from a script (maybe a matrix content?), where the additional and unexpected printout was cluttering the resulting string / text file.
My "this" referred to the whole deal, but...
(1) Checking the doc, I see that "append" offers the --quiet option, and it doesn't print anything if that option is given in conjunction with "set verbose off".
(2) The "store" command doesn't offer --quiet but arguably it should not print its confirmatory one-liner, "wrote filename" , under "verbose off". That's now the case in today's git.
Thanks, Allin, I think that completely fulfills the requested feature. We can clarify the necessity of "set verbose off" (or "set messages off") in the 'append' doc, and then we can close this ticket.
It seems we kind of lost track of the still needed doc clarification, so it didn't make it into gretl 2023c it seems. Well, no big deal, and I hope to find time to apply this in the next few days.
OK, I have just updated (and pushed) the append reference explaining how to achieve the silence. Closing this after two years!