Re: [boost] boost::log review (printf style api)

Subject: Re: [boost] boost::log review (printf style api)
From: Zachary Turner (divisortheory_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-14 21:45:56

On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Tom Brinkman <reportbase2007_at_[hidden]>wrote:

> >> It is actually more relevant than a "flame war." We are discussing how a
> log API should look to be most useful
> >> (in terms of depth and width), and that discussion pertains to all (new)
> libraries of Boost: do we want them
> >> to be used by the larger C populace? How much are we ready to sacrifice
> in expressivity (or succinctness) in
> >> order to widen our target? Should we have C wrappers for the most
> "utilitarian" libraries, such as a log library?

...  lots of other stuff snipped.

What you're *saying* (i.e., by voting no) is that boost::log is unsuitable
for boost.  What you're *arguing* (i.e. by means of your points /
rationales), is that boost is unsuitable for...  well, just about anything.

These arguments appear to be completely separate issues.  If you're saying
that Boost.Log should not be accepted into Boost because it's a perfect
Boost library, then that's not much of an argument from my point of view.

I think your vote of no is somewhat unreasonable, but I do think it's
reasonable to say that it should be accepted on condition that it add
support for variadic template printf-style formatting.

Zach