Re: [boost] logging v1.4 - some comments

From: John Torjo (john.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-22 12:39:40

Darryl Green wrote:

> John Torjo wrote:
> 
>>I don't think construction is tricky. I think knowing whether I'm still 
>>constructed - that's the problem.
> 
> 
> You can never test for "still constructed" using data that is part of 
> the possibly destructed object - all you get is undefined behavior.
> You don't need the test if you can live with never destroying the
> object.

But as you pointed out, it's only for statically constructed objects.
> [...]
> 

> 
> That works, but I think the interface reflects a design choice (mixing 
> naming/registering the appender and connecting it) that should be
> reconsidered.
> 

Yes, you're right. Your idea is much better, and I'll try to implement 
it ASAP. If you can do it, that would be even better :)
(I've posted the latest version of Boost.Log at http://www.torjo.com)

Best,
John

-- 
John Torjo,    Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal
-- "Win32 GUI Generics" -- generics & GUI do mix, after all
-- http://www.torjo.com/win32gui/ -v1.6.3 (Resource Splitter)
-- http://www.torjo.com/cb/ - Click, Build, Run!