-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Tom Brinkman Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 8:45 AM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: [boost] [logging] Review of proposed logging library
possibility to use printf syntax when logging [NOK OK]
Agree.
The use of macros will always be a discussion point, but it is convenient for a logging library. I do not have big issues with this.
I would like to see us push our selves harder here. This is "boost" after all, whose developers and users, fret for hours on the miniutia of the perfect interface. The logging library is no different than other libraries. All of us have though at one time or another having just this "one" macro wont make that much of a difference. A little more exploration and discussion of our interface goals always reveals a better way. Lets not settle. John is clearly motivatated to create a great logging library that useful for all c++ developers. Lets get behind this effort and help him get there between this review and the next one (if there is one).
With respect, I'm not sure there is *always* a better way than macros. For some applications macros provide a unique level of flexibility and efficiency. I'm the last person to advocate them, but when I constructed a logging library for our real-time scientific application, I was somewhat surprised to eventually figure out that logging macros *did* provide the best solution. So let's not discount John's effort on the grounds of anti-macro dogma alone, I'm sure we can find other problems ;).