Re: [boost] [logging] Review of proposed logging library

From: Tom Brinkman (reportbase_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-02-12 21:49:01

>> With respect, I'm not sure there is *always* a better way than macros.
For
>> some applications macros provide a unique level of flexibility and
>> efficiency. I'm the last person to advocate them, but when I constructed
a
>> logging library for our real-time scientific application, I was somewhat
>> surprised to eventually figure out that logging macros *did* provide the
>> best solution. So let's not discount John's effort on the grounds of
>> anti-macro dogma alone, I'm sure we can find other problems ;).

I'm not discounting his efforts because of macros.  What I am doing
is pointing that they should be de-emphaisized and are not forced on me.
If I dont care about the compile-time optimizations that a macro may
provide, I should'nt be forced to use them.

Macros may provide some flexibility for some users, but others wont
care about them and dont want to have to deal with them.

The typicaly use-case of the pubic interface of a c++ logging library
should not include macros.  They should only be offered as
optional optimizations.