Voting: std.logger

[Casey via Digitalmars-d]

> 1) Yes / No for inclusion into std.experimental

Yes

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

No

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

I can't say Yes until I've actually used it.

> 4) Any additional comments for author.

None for the author as I detailed my concerns in Github, though I 
should apologize for being very lax about participating (RL has 
been busy).  However, I wanted to address the suffix notation as 
I suggested it.  What I was going for was consistency with the 
write/writef method signatures to keep things consistent.  I felt 
it would be good to make the two similar since they do similar 
things.

My suggestion for conditional versions, logc and logcf, I believe 
are the ones causing some heartburn.  If you look at how write 
works, what does this mean?

     write(a < b, "some message");

Am I writing conditionally or am I writing out something like 
"truesome message"?  In phobos, it is the latter.  To have 
consistency, we can't simply make the first parameter be a 
condition as it would prevent us from doing something like this:

     log(canFind("foobar", "bar"));

Second, the way I look at it, you can read the methods like this:

     write - write
     writef - write formatted
     log - log
     logf - log formatted
     logc - log conditionally
     logcf - log conditionally and formatted

Having that english-like meaning I think will make it easier to 
recognize what's being done.

tl;dr I proposed having the log interface consistent with the 
write interface (from a parameter standpoint) and suggested the 
"c" suffix to make it clear that conditional logging is being 
performed vs. the first parameter being a boolean that's part of 
the log message.