Initial merge with xeus-clang-repl - Capture outputs #59
Conversation
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
|
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
|
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
|
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
|
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
|
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
|
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
|
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
|
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
|
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
|
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
|
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
| ~StreamRedirectRAII() { | ||
| std::string out = Cpp::EndStdStreamCapture(); | ||
| *err = Cpp::EndStdStreamCapture(); | ||
| std::cout << out; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should probably print out where err is printed...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's address that in a separate PR.
Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Vassil Vassilev <v.g.vassilev@gmail.com>
|
Hey @alexander-penev could you maybe squash the commits into a couple meaningful ones. Would make it easier for reviewing ! |
Often squashing loses the previous comments. Maybe we can squash on merge. If you click on the “files changed” tab you will see everything squashed. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, but I still don't understand why this is needed.
Are=> this is for capturing fprintf, thanks @vgvassilev for the offline explanationkStdErrandkStdOutdifferent beasts fromstd::cerrandstd::cout?- Also, why capturing / restoring them on each execute request instead of doing it upon creation / destruction of the interpreter?
4 participants
No description provided.