Voting: std.logger

[Martin Drašar via Digitalmars-d]

Dne 29.7.2014 7:11, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d napsal(a):
> (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.

The API is sane and the design has withstood a lot of relevant criticism 
as well as bikeshedding. Although, I do not really like log function 
suffixes and would prefer overloads.

> 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.

No.

There were a lot of changes during the review process. The module should 
IMO go to experimental to have some time to take care of all those small 
things as well as to get (hopefully) some larger adoption.

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

For me it is the stay in std.experimental and seeing that nobody is 
pressing for another api changes (like Andrei is doing now).

> 4) Any additional comments for author.

Great work and some great patience you have displayed in the process.
Thank you!