Review: std.logger

linkrope via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Tue Jul 22 03:24:31 PDT 2014


On Tuesday, 22 July 2014 at 09:51:24 UTC, ponce wrote:
> On Tuesday, 22 July 2014 at 08:44:06 UTC, linkrope wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 22 July 2014 at 07:27:38 UTC, ponce wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 20 July 2014 at 16:15:53 UTC, linkrope wrote:
>>>> By the way: Instead of what I really need, I get a 
>>>> NullLogger.
>>>> I have no clue, why I never ever missed such an oddity.
>>>
>>> I asked for it. And I use it, because I write libraries that 
>>> log warnings but don't forcefully require the users to 
>>> provide a Logger if they don't want to.
>>> And that way, I can still write "logger.warningf" without 
>>> "if" everywhere.
>>
>> But then it's better to provide no logger (or at least no 
>> logger for level warning) than an artificial NullLogger.
>
> My need is not "artificial", at least in my view.
> Your opinion is different from mine. That's fine.
> That's why we need someone to try to reconcile the many, many 
> opinions about this.

Not the need is artificial. For example, I have the need to 
measure the performance of an application with and without 
logging.

I think, the solution is artificial. The obvious solution would 
be to register no logger at all.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list