Re: [boost] [log] Boost Logging Lib v2, 0.9.3

From: John Torjo (john.groups_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-31 11:23:12

Hi Jens,

Issues fixed and committed, thanks!

>
> in the commit log:
>   v0.9.10, 31 oct 2007
> There should be no need for this or do you really release a new version
> multiple times per day? Refering to the revision number is maybe better
> especially as applying a single patch is often not sufficent to fix a
> bug properly.
>
>   
I just want to track what changes I do - until I reach a version that 
compiles on gcc 3.4.2, 4.1 and 4.3.
After that, there won't be as many comments ;)
> A few comments:
>
>   * Why do you have compiler specific directories such as
>     lib/logging/samples/gcc/ especially as files in it are
>     (nearly) empty?
>   
Fixed - moved to "internal" directory - not to generate confusion
>     I suggest to drop all kind of platform and compiler specific
>     code from the test and sample files.
>   * Some code evaluates the UNICODE macro to decide whether to use
>     char or wchar. Why? Probably UNICODE is just a wrong name for
>     something which should be called USE_MULTI_BYTE or similar.
>     Unicode is a character set which exist in various encodings.
>     Some encodings such as UTF-8 do not require wchar support at
>     all!
>   
Yes, not called UNICODE anymore.

>   * In boost/logging/format/destination/defaults.hpp you use
>     Windows related code to write into a "debug stream" and do nothing
>     on other systems (this raised a warning about code without effect
>     which you added trying to fix a "unused variable" warning). This
>     contradicts with the documentation on other systems so that I
>     changed it to write to std::cout in this case.
>   
done.
>   * Some files are called stdafx.h but documentation refers to either
>     STDAFX.H or StdAfx.h. Every proper operating system is able to use
>     an arbritrary file system (Linux supports at least 30!). Does this
>     mean this is not true for your proprietary system? I thought I read
>     about (optional) support for ext2 or reiserfs filesystems on it as
>     well (which are case sensitive).
>     Why do you not drop stdafx.h. Is it really used?
>
>   
removed stdafx. files.

Best,
John
> Jens
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

-- 
http://John.Torjo.com -- C++ expert
... call me only if you want things done right