std.experimental.logger formal review round 3

Robert burner Schadek via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Sun Oct 12 05:07:55 PDT 2014


On Saturday, 11 October 2014 at 23:37:42 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
>
> I had the same feeling as Jakob about an `Appender` already
> in the base class and would have expected a bare bones
> abstract class + a batteries included version using `Appender`.
> (A bit like Java's …Listener and …Adapter classes.)
> That seems more clean to me in a representational fashion.
> Technically we can just ignore the extra field...
> It also seems legit to reduce pressure on the GC, by resetting
> the `Appender` instead of nulling it.

What if a Logger down the chain keeps the string around and you 
overwrite it?


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list