Review of Jose Armando Garcia Sancio's std.log

[Dmitry Olshansky]

On 04.03.2012 2:17, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 3/3/12 5:51 AM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>> Am 17.02.2012 21:48, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
>>> On 2/17/12 12:06 PM, Jose Armando Garcia wrote:
>>>> info("%s message", Severity.info);
>>>
>>> I think defaulting to formatted stuff may be confusing.
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>
>> Do you often log static messages? In my experience the majority of
>> logging calls contains dynamic information and using a format string is
>> the most convenient and readable form (compared to concatenating using
>> multiple arguments).
>>
>> An additional infof(), warnf() etc. would be an acceptable alternative,
>> although not very pretty. But if you'd always have to write
>> info.format() or something similar, then this would be a real turn-off,
>> at least for me.
>
> I think it's fine to default to formatted. Also, it just occurred to me
> that we can adjust the formatting primitives to leave any "%"s alone if
> there are no matching arguments. Consider:
>
> log.info("100% done!");
>
> This is technically an error, but since D has static knowledge there are
> no variadics, it could simply output the string. That's faster, too,
> because no validation of the string is necessary.
>
> Thoughts?

I would say just separate them please. Let it work as writeln/writefln 
and nobody is hurt.

With all manner of magic rules the innocent will catch a bullet sooner 
or latter. And it's always happens kind of point-blank, when the code is 
shipped & forgotten.
Turning on imagination, e.g. for rarely used stuff:
log.warn("100%done for task %s, yet the client timed out", taskName);


-- 
Dmitry Olshansky