std.experimental.logger formal review round 3

[Marco Leise via Digitalmars-d]

Am Sun, 12 Oct 2014 12:07:55 +0000
schrieb "Robert burner Schadek" <rburners at gmail.com>:

> 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?

That would be bad.

-- 
Marco