std.experimental.logger formal review round 3

[Jakob Ovrum via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 02:54:27 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> As there was quite some last moment feedback I am giving some 
> more time for me to research issues a bit and Robert to address 
> them :)

The Pareto Principle could be worth mentioning here. We were 80% 
of the way to a quality interface a long time ago, but the last 
20% is taking a disproportionate amount of time to iron out. I 
think all this criticism is indicative that we're holding this 
module to a high standard rather than the code being bad, which I 
think is a very good thing. Thankfully Marco stepped up and 
provided a solution to the threading problem, so I don't think 
it's that far off.

Apropos threading though, I'm not sure how to consolidate the 
fact that we're using shared memory without using `shared`. It 
seems like a failure to have such an intricately designed memory 
model, then as soon as we do threading in Phobos, we ignore it.

I still intend to go through all the documentation and fix things 
I can spot as soon as the interface is finalized.