From: John Torjo (john.groups_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-02-11 17:22:06
>> Not in its current form.
> Though I've only summarised certain aspects of Amit's review and will not be
> offering a full review of my own, I wanted to agree wholeheartedly with his
> critique. Thanks Amit.
> However, without trying to judge or prejudice the outcome of the review, I
> hope there is a way forward from here that doesn't outright reject a library
> that clearly has a huge number of positives.
Thinking over the feedback I got, what I want is another review in 3.5
Most requests are not that complex to achieve - it's just that I don't
have time to do them right away.
> The world of logging is so diverse, its almost impossible to satisfy all
> aims simultaneously in elegant code. Usability and shallow learning curve,
> run-time optimisations, flexibility, modularity, extended use cases.
Tell me 'bout it ;)
> Is it mainly a case that some syntactic sugar is needed to spruce up the way
> the logging library works. Its aims and capabilities seem invaluable even if
> the interface to them isn't quite right yet.
Yup, couldn't agree more ;)
> Thanks John for all your efforts. Good luck with the review.
Thanks, see you at the next review ;)
-- http://John.Torjo.com -- C++ expert http://blog.torjo.com ... call me only if you want things done right
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk