Review: std.logger

[H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 02:59:43PM +0000, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 11 July 2014 at 14:39:09 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
> >On Friday, 11 July 2014 at 14:36:34 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> >>Round of a formal review before proceeding to voting. Subject for
> >>Phobos inclusion : http://wiki.dlang.org/Review/std.logger authored
> >>by Robert Schadek.
> >
> >Is this for std.* or std.experimental.*?
> >
> >David
> 
> Deciding this is subject of this review/voting iteration too - it is
> mostly matter of API stability, how much of a trust reviewers are
> ready to put into existing API.
> 
> Personally I believe that for something like logging library
> stabilization period of one release cycle in std.experimental is
> desirable because wider usage is very likely to result in breaking
> change suggestions.

I vote for std.experimental. We keep talking about it, but never do
anything in that direction. Let's start. If it works out poorly, we can
always scrap the idea later. But we'll never know if we never do it.

(In contrast, putting it directly in std risks the necessity of breaking
changes later, which is a Bad Thing. Putting it in std.experimental now
does no harm whatsoever -- the worst that can happen is that it's
delayed entering std. The best is that breaking changes will not annoy
users. So we have nothing to lose.)


T

-- 
"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." -- E.W. Dijkstra