Voting: std.logger

[Jakob Ovrum via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 05:11:33 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> 1) Yes / No for inclusion into std.experimental

If modules in std.experimental are completely free to make 
breaking changes, then my vote is a clear yes.

I'm uncertain if std.experimental can carry its own weight in the 
presence of dub, but I guess that's a discussion for another 
thread.

> 2) Yes / No for inclusion into Phobos in its current state

No.

IMO, both API and implementation are insufficient. Additionally, 
the "current state" is extremely volatile with sweeping API 
changes being made in the last two weeks or so.

However, review is on-going and at this rate, I'm hopeful it will 
be good enough by the next vote.

> 3) If you have answered "No" for (2) :  list of mandatory 
> changes that are needed to make you vote "Yes"

a) The *API* must support minimal dynamic memory allocation for 
the normal execution path. However, theoretical *implementation* 
changes that reduce memory allocation are not a deal-breaker.

b) API must specify a strong stance on threading, whatever the 
form it takes.

c) This one might seem unnecessarily strict, but I think the fact 
that Logger is a class and not an interface smells of poor 
design. I might still be convinced that having it as a class is 
justified, but my current stance is that it must be an interface.

> 4) Any additional comments for author.

The author is aware of my gripes from Github comments and posts 
in the review thread.