Re: [boost] [Review] The review of the Boost.Logging library starts today, November 7th

From: John Torjo (john.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-14 08:34:43

Eelis van der Weegen wrote:

> John Torjo wrote:
> 
>>Eelis van der Weegen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>1. What is the fundamental reason that logs cannot be declared/defined with 
>>>something as simple as  boost::logging::log mylog ("mylog");
>>
>>Note: you can actually do the above: it's called "Scoped Logs"
> 
> 
> The existence of scoped logs doesn't really affect my question: Assuming 
> that BOOST_DECLARE_LOG/BOOST_DEFINE_LOG have a good reason to exist (for 
> example because logger objects cannot be used at namespace level), what is 
> the fundamental reason that they have to be macro's? Why can't we get the 
> normal non-macro syntax at namespace level without losing functionality?

It's because the implementation of BOOST_DECLARE/DEFINE_LOG might change 
in time. Right now, it's a function returning a static reference to a 
logger. However, in time, if I find something better, it will change.

> 
> Regarding string names -- while I do not dispute that some users may have a 
> use for a runtime object identification system based on string names or 
> other runtime identification values, I am convinced that such systems solve 
> a completely different problem that in its core has nothing to do with 
> logging. I therefore feel that a logging library should just work with 
> normal C++ identifiers, variables, references, iterators, etc. Any nifty 
> string mappings (and naming/query schemes) can always be built on top of 
> that if needed.

There's nothing stopping from not using the string names, if you really 
don't wish it.

Best,
John

-- 
John Torjo,    Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal
-- "Win32 GUI Generics" -- generics & GUI do mix, after all
-- http://www.torjo.com/win32gui/surfaces.html - Sky's the limit!
-- http://www.torjo.com/cb/ - Click, Build, Run!