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@gmail.com>wrote:
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Tom Brinkman <reportbase2007@gmail.com
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