I think that using the stdout / stderr should be the way. It's the standard and expected way to behave.

Even though, I recommend you to perform a little test to see how the output is generated in the terminal, if everything is mixed up or it is quite long, maybe generating a file is not as bad idea, it will improve the way Pharo can be used by the command line.��

Other tools have different logging levels or even options to send the logging to a file. But that maybe is asking too much for a first version.

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Christophe Demarey <christophe.demarey@inria.fr> wrote:

> Le 22 juin 2016 �� 14:05, Valentin Ryckewaert <valentin.ryckewaert@gmail.com> a ��crit :
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> i'm currently working on making Pharo able to manage if it writes on his files.I created a class which can define it, then�� I'm already able, for example, to define if Pharo writes on pharo.changes or not.
>
> The meaning of this is to make Pharo able to execute a script but without being modified by it, a script shouldn't let any trace of its execution on the image or on Pharo files.
>
> My problem concern PharoDebug.log, I would like to know what you prefer Pharo to do with it in the case we configured it to not write on his files (changes, source,image....).
> Should Pharo writes the logs in the terminal ? in a tmp file ? or just in PharoDebug.log ?

If you want to use Pharo as a script interpreter, then just do like other interpreter: report results and errors on stdout / stderr.
Then, you can redirect the output to also have it in a file if you want. I would not use PharoDebug.log or any other file.

Christophe





--
Pablo Tesone.
tesonep@gmail.com