Subject: Re: [boost] [log] Boost.Log formal review
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-13 14:36:06
On 13 March 2010 19:18, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I wouldn't call that a "logging library" since it doesn't actually write
> logs. It's more like a binding or a wrapper.
Call it whatever you wish. I assume it'd include a simple backend for
basic tasks (which might just write to a stream or something),
although by default it'd do nothing.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk