From: Caleb Epstein (caleb.epstein_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-02 21:22:19
On 4/2/07, JD <jean.daniel.michaud_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Caleb Epstein wrote:
> > Any logging library should be free-standing and usable without
> > *requiring* macros like the above.
> Why? I like macros for this particular case. Here again there is a
> debate, that is not close to being over...
Believe me, if you propose only a macro interface to your logging
library, it won't stand a chance in the review phase.
Do not read this to mean that I think there shouldn't be *any* macros.
Far from it. I think some macros are unavoidable and can be used
I mean that the library concepts and classes should be clearly
specified and usable without any macros. Some users will prefer the
class interfaces, and others will want to write their *own* macros
that suit their needs better than the ones you provide. All of this
is possible with a well documented interface, so start there.
-- Caleb Epstein
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk