Voting: std.logger

[Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d]

On 29/07/2014 5:11 p.m., Dicebot wrote:
> (sorry for being a bit late, was distracted)
>
> std.logger proposal by Robert Schadek enters voting period which will
> last two weeks starting from now.
>
> Discussion thread :
> http://forum.dlang.org/post/zhvmkbahrqtgkptdlcvh@forum.dlang.org
>
> This voting will be somewhat different from previous ones because it
> will be done with std.experimental in mind. Because of that please reply
> with a bit more structured votes:
>
> 1) Yes / No for inclusion into std.experimental
>
> At this point please consider if module has functionality you want to
> see in standard library in general and if implementation is not
> fundamentally broken. This is a simple sanity check.

Yes,
I have not tested it, just for reference sake. But the code design looks 
fine. Nicely documented with unittests.

> 2) Yes / No for inclusion into Phobos in its current state
>
> This is where you should summarize your concerns raised during review if
> there are any and make decision if existing API / architecture are
> promising enough to be set in stone via Phobos inclusion.

Yes
But might be a good idea to add a Syslog and Windows event viewer 
logger(s) support.

> 3) If you have answered "No" for (2) :  list of mandatory changes that
> are needed to make you vote "Yes"
>
> 4) Any additional comments for author.

Okay 1) update sidebar for phobos docs (atleast I couldn't see link to 
modules in there).
2) for std.logger.core defaultLogger please please please add that at 
the top of the page of documentation. Or else the very ability to change 
the default logger could be lost. It took me a while to find it.

> Please separate (3) from (4) in some obvious fashion to make it possible
> for author to prioritize of feedback. Please use linked thread for
> discussions and only post vote + summary here.
>
> Currently only answer for (1) affects the voting outcome. Other answers
> are necessary to eventually  prepare std.logger for second voting during
> beta period of some future release (for actual inclusion into Phobos).
>
> If you have any comments / proposals about actual voting procedure or
> review process please create separate thread.
>
> Go ahead ;)