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

Subject: Re: [boost] boost::log review (printf style api)
From: Tom Brinkman (reportbase2007_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-14 22:32:34

>> 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.

Agreed.  That sums it up.

On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Zachary Turner <divisortheory_at_[hidden]>wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>