Re: [boost] [logging] Review of proposed logging library

From: Terence Wilson (tez_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-02-12 20:05:18

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
On
> Behalf Of Tom Brinkman
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 8:45 AM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] [logging] Review of proposed logging library
> 
> >> possibility to use printf syntax when logging [NOK OK]
> 
> Agree.
> 
> >> 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.  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).
> 

With respect, I'm not sure there is *always* a better way than macros. For
some applications macros provide a unique level of flexibility and
efficiency. I'm the last person to advocate them, but when I constructed a
logging library for our real-time scientific application, I was somewhat
surprised to eventually figure out that logging macros *did* provide the
best solution. So let's not discount John's effort on the grounds of
anti-macro dogma alone, I'm sure we can find other problems ;).