std.experimental.logger formal review round 3

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 10/25/14 9:43 AM, Dicebot wrote:
> Jut for the reference, my position on current state of things as review
> manager is this:
>
> I agree with some of mentioned concerns and would like to see those
> fixed. However, I don't think any of those are truly critical and this
> proposal has been hanging there for just too long. In my opinion it will
> be more efficient to resolve any remainining issues in follow-up pull
> requests on case by case basis then forcing Robert to do it himself -
> there will be some time left before next release to break a thing or two
> before public statement is made.
>
> Because of that I am going to start voting despite some arguments being
> still in process. I hope that won't cause any tension.

Being able to select maximum logging level statically at client 
application level is a deal maker/breaker for me. The mechanics aren't 
important but it's likely they will affect the API. So I think that 
needs to be resolved now, not in a future pull request.

Andrei