From: Martin Bonner (Martin.Bonner_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-02-12 12:03:15
From: Tom Brinkman
>>> The use of macros will always be a
>>> discussion point, but it is convenient for a
>>> logging library. I do not have big issues with this.
> I would like to see us push our selves harder here. This is
> "boost" after all, whose developers and users, fret for hours
> on the miniutia of the perfect interface. The logging library
> is no different than other libraries. All of us have though
> at one time or another having just this "one" macro wont make
> that much of a difference. A little more exploration and
> discussion of our interface goals always reveals
> a better way.
Counter example: BOOST_FOREACH
(I'm fairly sure there are more).
I also think that logging is another one of the cases where a macro is
appropriate (I don't think there is any way to have a runtime argument
completely disable execution of logging expressions without have an 'if'
in there at the top level. That means either the user needs to write
the if, or it has to be in a macro. I vote for the macro.)
> Lets not settle. John is clearly motivatated
> to create a great logging library that useful for all c++ developers.
> Lets get behind this effort and help him get there between
> this review and the next one (if there is one).
Here, here. I am very impressed at the way John has taken the criticism
of his library (some of it expressed in fairly forthright terms), and
seems entirely committed to a second significant rewrite and yet another
go-round in the bear-pit (even before the review manager decides whether
to accept or reject the library).
-- Martin Bonner Senior Software Engineer/Team Leader PI SHURLOK LTD Telephone: +44 1223 441434 / 203894 (direct) Fax: +44 1223 203999 Email: martin.bonner_at_[hidden] www.pi-shurlok.com disclaimer
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk