Re: [boost] [logging] Interest check on logging library.

Subject: Re: [boost] [logging] Interest check on logging library.
From: Gordon Woodhull (gordon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-01 17:53:04

On Jan 1, 2009, at 5:11 PM, Andrey Semashev wrote:
> That is your choice, indeed. However, in general, this will not  
> allow you to immediately see if the record will be processed or not.  
> This is because filters are usually set up in some initialization  
> code, which is rather remote from places where you actually write  
> logs.

I believe what Jason is talking about is compile-time filtering where  
the compiler actually does know the answer and is able to eliminate  
code.  The "trivial 'if'" is gone after optimization.  This seems like  
a very nice feature to me.

(earlier post:)
> writing the result of a function call, like dump_hex in your  
> example. I didn't investigate this, but I suspect the call will  
> still be present in the compiled code, which, AFAICT, is not what  
> you intended.

These is what the lazy function evaluation is for.  It seems to me  
that lazy functions are going to be necessary for any non-macro  
solution that doesn't require ifs in user code, but they might also be  
helpful with the runtime filtering you are talking about?

I really like the syntax and compile-time filtering of this new  
proposal - please figure out how to combine these two libraries!

Gordon