cuneiform team mailing list archive

["Dmitry Polevoy" <openocr.polevoy@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for your explanation. BAT-file is bad, because main goal of
batch-mode is stress testing for OCR-core.

I am planing to find some solution.

2009/1/15 Jussi Pakkanen <jpakkane@xxxxxxxxx>

> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Dmitry Polevoy
> <openocr.polevoy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Can you give some more information about problem with output file
> > /dev/stdout?
>
> Writing to file /dev/stdout on Unix machines causes the output to
> appear on the console. Your patch seems to append the file output type
> to the input filename. Thus it tries to create a new file called
> /dev/stdout.txt. This does not work, because the /dev directory is
> read-only. I think that we should follow the common behaviour of
> command line programs:
>
> If the user specifies an output file name on the command line, that is
> precisely the file we write to. No exceptions. Even if the extension
> is wrong or missing. The user may very well have a valid reason for
> this.
>
> The main problem with pack mode is that its behaviour should be done
> using the shell. Unfortunately Windows' standard shell is garbage and
> this makes adding the pack mode tempting. I really don't have a good,
> maintainable solution for this. Is it possible to achieve your goal
> using a simple .BAT file?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~cuneiform<https://launchpad.net/%7Ecuneiform>
> Post to     : cuneiform@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~cuneiform<https://launchpad.net/%7Ecuneiform>
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>