Re: Redirectable octave?

[Michael Goffioul]

On 10/18/07, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
> | OK. I'll continue this way and come with a full patch later. Just a small
> | question: would this API go into an existing header or would you prefer
> | a separate one?
>
> I'd say define these symbols in a separate header.

OK.

> Also, should we consider renaming octave_stdout (the one that normally
> goes through the pager) to avoid confusion?

That's why I use the longer octave_stdio_xxx syntax. If you're OK
with renaming octave_stdout, then I'd use that syntax instead.
However, I don't know whether octave_stdout is actually used
outside octave itself.

Michael.