Re: [boost] [Review] Boost.Logging: formal review

From: Martin Bonner (martin.bonner_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-15 09:14:37

----Original Message----
From: Richard Glanmark [mailto:Richard.Glanmark_at_[hidden]]
Sent: 15 December 2005 08:33
To: boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] Boost.Logging: formal review

> Some thoughts and ideas about some of the topics that has been
> discussed regarding the proposed Boost.Logging library.
> 
> 
> 1. Enabled/disabled logger, logging macros and efficiency
> 
> The logging macro BOOST_LOG should accept two arguments instead of
> one. The logger and the log message. The syntax
> 
> (1)	BOOST_LOG(some_log) << "my message " << foo() << bar();
> 
> should be replaced with
> 
> (2)	BOOST_LOG(some_log,  "my message " << foo() << bar());
> 
> and the macro being defined something like this
> 
> (3)	#define BOOST_LOG(logger, msg) \
> 		if(logger.isEnabled()) { /* code that logs msg */ ... }

The current definition is (I believe)

#define BOOST_LOG(logger) \
        if(!logger.isEnabled()) {} else logger

Which achieves the same ends.  In particular, foo() is not called unless
logging occurs.

-- 
Martin Bonner
Martin.Bonner_at_[hidden]
Pi Technology, Milton Hall, Ely Road, Milton, Cambridge, CB4 6WZ,
ENGLAND Tel: [phone]