std.log available for viewing

[Jose Armando Garcia]

Then use critical with all the exception handling techniques that D
provide, try, scope, etc. Maybe critical should allow the throwing of
user define exceptions with a meaningful default. What do people
think?

On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes at gmail.com> wrote:
> Am 29.05.2011 22:57, schrieb Brad Roberts:
>> On 5/29/2011 8:44 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> 1. The fatal log should never be stripped. This is because execution of code after using fatal depends on compile-time
>>> flags, which is unacceptable. Logging to fatal should terminate the application regardless of circumstances. Otherwise
>>> people would need to write things like:
>>>
>>> fatal("blah");
>>> assert(0, "Execution cannot continue even though logging is stripped");
>>>
>>> This is needless and bug-prone. Fatal is fatal.
>>
>> At one time I used a log framework that included this behavior.  After a couple years, I came to greatly regret it.
>> Fatalness down in libraries became overused, particularly in layers that were libraries.  In some ways it was abuse of
>> fatal for things that shouldn't have been, but it's mere existence encouraged it's use.
>>
>> I really don't think it's the log libraries job to implement app termination behavior.
>>
>> My 2 cents,
>> Brad
>
> Also imagine the following scenario: You detect a fatal error and want
> to log it, while all the useful information you want to log is at hand.
> However afterwards you'd like to shut down the application gracefully to
> leave your data as consistent as possible or whatever, so you don't want
> the application to terminate immediately after fatal() but you want to
> do error handling yourself and terminate afterwards (and what you do for
> error handling/shutting downmay be dependent on the error, so just using
> scope(error) may not be the easiest choice).
>
> Cheers,
> - Daniel
>