Lazy eval -- an example issue

[kris]

Walter Bright wrote:
> kris wrote:
> 
>> So, we have some existing code for logging. Very efficient, and highly 
>> flexible. It follows the design patterns popularized by Log4J, with 
>> Appenders, Layouts, etc
>>
>> The D version of a logger has five 'levels' of logging:
>>
>> log.trace (char[])
>> log.info (char[])
>> log.warn (char[])
>> log.error (char[])
>> log.fatal (char[])
>>
>> and the intent (with dmd.164) was to add these flavours, specifically 
>> to address the point Walter makes about unnecessary message construction:
>>
>> log.trace (char[] delegate() dg)
>> log.info (char[] delegate() dg)
>> log.warn (char[] delegate() dg)
>> log.error (char[] delegate() dg)
>> log.fatal (char[] delegate() dg)
>>
>> The support code was installed fairly recently, and the above 
>> delegate-wrappers were on the todo list.
>>
>> However, dmd.165 will presumeably not compile this code?
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
>> Won't there be an overload ambiguity?
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> If so, it illustrates a serious shortcoming in the new syntax
> 
> 
> Just get rid of the (char[]) versions.


Can't do that; the char[] version have to stay.