-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Darren Cook Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 1:06 AM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Logging Library -- Formal Review Request

...

Depending on how the check is performed, the overhead is virtually nonexistent.

But still there :-).

[Bennett, Patrick] If you're concerned about a simple lookup, compare, and jump, sure. :)

...

...

BOOST_LOG(app,"testing " << i << '-' << j << '-' << k);

Well, you can count my vote against this method. For you, the entire point of doing it this way is so that the logging can be compiled out -

It is also slightly shorter. It seems just as natural to me.

[Bennett, Patrick] I suppose everybody has their preferences. I'm not one to discount that. :) ...

But I want to have both: I want some log statements I can insert while debugging time-critical code and disable at compile time, and others that are always there but that I can choose to switch on and off at run-time. And I want both in the same project.

Perhaps then BOOST_LOG_DBG() is a better name for the one that can be compiled out. Or BOOST_LOGD().

[Bennett, Patrick] Sounds fine. I guess I just see the requirements quite a bit different than (probably) many. I see a logging/tracing library as something for diagnostics and debugging, not as a here-and-there std::cout<<xxx substitute. Many of the applications at the company I work at can easily log *gigabytes* of diagnostic data an hour per subsystem. Logging isn't an occasional nice to have for us, it's an absolutely necessity. Patrick Bennett