Review of Jose Armando Garcia Sancio's std.log

[Jose Armando Garcia]

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
<schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 18:30:03 -0500, David Nadlinger <see at klickverbot.at>
> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, 5 March 2012 at 21:55:08 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>>
>>> The log aliases use names that are too common.  I think log.info is a
>>> better symbol for logging than just 'info', which could be a symbol in a
>>> myriad of places.  Given that D's symbol lookup rules allow shadowing of
>>> global symbols, this does not work out very well.
>>
>>
>> Originally, the code used log!info and so on, but it was changed to the
>> current design right after review begin, the rationale being that you could
>> always use »import log = std.log« if you want the extra namespace.
>
>
> That doesn't help.  Software isn't static.
>
> import std.log;
import log = std.log;
> import other; // defines B
>
> class A : B
> {
>   void foo()
>   {
>      info("some info message"); // error! int isn't a function!
       log.info("some info message");
>   }
> }
>
> other.d:
>
> class B
> {
>   int info; // added later
>
> }
>
>>
>>> Like others have stated, I think vlog is a) confusing, and b)
>>> unnecessary.  Even reading the docs, I can't understand what it's used for,
>>> and why it has such different syntax than the normal logging stuff.
>>
>>
>> I think this been modelled after glog's verbose logging support [1], just
>> like much of the rest of the design (by the way, I think a note about this
>> should added somewhere in the module docs). Does the feature as described in
>> the glog docs make sense to you?
>
>
> It's good to know the root of where this comes from.  The docs in glog do
> make more sense than the vlog docs.
>
> This may be a doc issue.  I'll have to think about it some more.
>
> -Steve