Re: [boost] [log] Boost.Log formal review

Subject: Re: [boost] [log] Boost.Log formal review
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-12 08:56:03

On 12 March 2010 13:38, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> I was presuming that such a mechanism would reuse parts of Boost.Log

Then it probably wouldn't be lightweight enough and it would make
other logging libraries second class backends. It also wouldn't be
usable from anything which is more portable than Boost.Log.

Daniel