std.experimental.logger formal review round 3

[Robert burner Schadek via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 11 October 2014 at 10:48:00 UTC, Jacob Carlborg 
wrote:
> On 2014-10-11 05:41, Dicebot wrote:
>> I don't see critical objections so far and this will move to 
>> voting
>> stage this weekend. Please hurry up if you want to say 
>> something bad :)
>
> I think it's unacceptable that the documentation of 
> "defaultLogFunction" and "trace", "info" and so on is merged. 
> Same thing with "memLogFunctions". Do these even need to be 
> exposed?

this has been used make user defined LogLevel log functions, like

trace1(...), trace2(...)