Early review of std.logger

[Robert Schadek]

On 10/21/2013 06:19 AM, SomeDude wrote:
> On Tuesday, 15 October 2013 at 08:47:00 UTC, Robert Schadek wrote:
>> On 10/15/2013 09:32 AM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>>> Am 15.10.2013 09:08, schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
>>>> On 2013-10-14 23:22, Dicebot wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If we need to care about that, D module system is a failure.
>>>>> But I don't think it is a valid concern.
>>>>
>>>> People already complain about conflict function names in Phobos.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And I'd agree with them. At least inside of a library, care IMO should
>>> be taken to minimize overlap (of course functionally equivalent ones
>>> in different overload sets are fine, though). But in case of "logXXX"
>>> this seems to be very unlikely, much in contrast to "log"
>>> (std.math.log).
>> yes and no. Of course does logXXX create less conflict, but I like to
>> simply write log and don't care about the LogLevel. So again pros and
>> cons
>
> I for once have never seen any log API with
> log.level = INFO;
> Logger.log("Here be dragons");
>
> And this I believe for a good reason: in 99% of production code I've
> seen, several log levels are mixed, i.e INFO, CRITICAL and DEBUG for
> instance, so the case where a single log level is used, even in the
> same method, just never happens. The proposed solution looks extremely
> inconvenient to me as it will almost always necessit two lines of code
> instead of one.
How good than, that you can pass the LogLevel as first argument to the
log function.
>
> I am with Sönke on this one, as well as the need for multi logger
> output. That's the absolute minimum requirement. If this doesn't
> exist, what will happen is, someone will make something better.
I added a MultiLogger five days ago...