From: Jesse Jones (jesjones_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-26 18:39:48
At 4:28 PM -0500 11/26/01, David A. Greene wrote:
>Ok, I don't understand then what you mean by "take optional
>arguments...to modify the formatting." What formatting are you
It's the ToStr methods:
LOG(NULL, "pi = ", ToStr(pi, 3));
would print pi to 3 decimal places.
> > There's no support for line numbers. I haven't seen a need for
>> anything like that.
>I always thought it would be nice for my users to scream at me
>and then tell me where the problem is. :) A unique ID for each
>(static) message would be almost as good.
It's useful with asserts, but I can't think of anyplace where I've
used logging where it would be helpful.
>Gotcha. I like that messages can go to multiple sinks.
>>> From your usage in the previous message, it looks like each
>>>variable in the message is passed as a separate parameter. Doesn't
>>>that require a whole lot of overloaded methods?
>> Currently I support LOG functions with up to 10 custom arguments so I
>> have just over 10 overloaded functions. (Actually I have another 10
>> because there's a debug only version called TRACE).
>This seems excessive to me. It's certainly not scalable. But maybe
>log messages are short enough that it doesn't matter.
I've gotten up to eight or nine arguments so ten is probably a bit
too small. OTOH if someone is using LOG with too many arguments they
could just call LOG more than once...
> >>Of course the presents the (probably likely) chance that the programmer
>>>will mis-type the category in some message and never see it (since he
>>>doesn't know the name of the category to turn on). Though inn a
>>>GUI he will at least get some strange menu entries. :)
>> Yep, and it is pretty obvious in a GUI app. In other apps I think
>> you'd still want to do something similar. For example, in the past
>> I've had app's that wrote the categories to an XML file on shutdown
>> and read from that file on startup. This way everyone on the team
>> could easily customize the logging output for the stuff they were
>> interested in. This isn't as in your face as a menu, but I think
>> misspelled categories would still be found fairly quickly.
>You're probably right, but I'm a fail-fast kinda guy. :)
Me too, but there are nice advantages to using strings and the
failure consequences are pretty mild.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk