std.experimental.logger formal review round 3

[Robert burner Schadek via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 26 October 2014 at 23:45:56 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> On 10/26/2014 11:29 PM, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
>>
>> And I forgot to add, no better solution presented itself in 
>> one year.
>
> Well I showed one solution, but reduce it to its essence.
> If you allow to define a Logger with a LogLevel know at compile 
> time and you statically pass the LogLevel of your message to 
> the logging function you can elide that call. For anything else 
> you need a runtime check.
>
> http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/2538c3b5d287

And again I'm saying fixing the LogLevel at CT is not good 
enough. And the other part of the solution uses class just like 
std.logger.
And the hierarchy you're building is also at CT, which is just 
not gone work, if you don't have ultimate control of all sources.