Not in its current form.
Though I've only summarised certain aspects of Amit's review and will not be offering a full review of my own, I wanted to agree wholeheartedly with his critique. Thanks Amit.
However, without trying to judge or prejudice the outcome of the review, I hope there is a way forward from here that doesn't outright reject a library that clearly has a huge number of positives.
Thinking over the feedback I got, what I want is another review in 3.5 months. Most requests are not that complex to achieve - it's just that I don't have time to do them right away.
The world of logging is so diverse, its almost impossible to satisfy all aims simultaneously in elegant code. Usability and shallow learning curve, run-time optimisations, flexibility, modularity, extended use cases.
Tell me 'bout it ;)
Is it mainly a case that some syntactic sugar is needed to spruce up the way the logging library works. Its aims and capabilities seem invaluable even if the interface to them isn't quite right yet.
Yup, couldn't agree more ;)
Thanks John for all your efforts. Good luck with the review.
Thanks, see you at the next review ;) Best, John -- http://John.Torjo.com -- C++ expert http://blog.torjo.com ... call me only if you want things done right