Re: [boost] [logging] Interest check on logging library.

Subject: Re: [boost] [logging] Interest check on logging library.
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-27 18:13:00

on Sat Dec 27 2008, "Jason Wagner" <jason-AT-nialscorva.net> wrote:

>>  My reasoning is that a logging library should be lightweight in terms
>>  of source code; when I need logging, I'd rather not get boost::mpl
>>  too.
>
> Understandable.  Everything's a matter of tradeoffs.  The project I'm working on has a
> slightly more involved logging use case.  One concern I have is how much compile times
> will be affected by MPL and the templates I'm using and whether the flexibility is
> worth the cost.

One should keep in mind that MPL is specifically designed to avoid
needless compile-time costs.  Drawing in a few MPL headers may not be
a measurable expense.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com