Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [logging] Interest check on logging library.
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-27 20:44:16

On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 3:13 PM, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> on Sat Dec 27 2008, "Jason Wagner" <> 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.

I am not against using MPL together with the logging library, but
ideally I'd like that to be a user decision. Why not have the logging
library use something like logging_traits::flag, where "flag" is
user-specified and might use MPL, but might also be simply "true" or
"false". I understand the logging library interface is more complex
than this but the general approach I'm describing is applicable, is it

Emil Dotchevski
Reverge Studios, Inc.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at