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
> 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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk