On 2011-05-17 22:15, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 5/17/11 4:02 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-05-16 02:05, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Thanks for your work.
I think there's an important distinction to be made. There are two
"API"s being discussed. One is the client interface and the other is the
extensibility interface.
Jose looked into both: he provided a client interface that has
formatting, levels, enabling, and such, and an extensibility interface
that essentially is a simple output stream.
My library explores the client interface and leaves the extensibility
interface as an obvious piece of work that needs little agreement and
minimal design effort.
Finally, your library keeps the client interface to a minimum and
focuses almost exclusively on the extensibility interface. In doing so,
it makes few choices that I disagree with. Allow me to share some
specific feedback.
Note that my suggestion was just a simple and incomplete suggestion on
how the API could look like. I only provided "info", "warning" and
"error" methods as examples, I'm not saying the API should only have
these three levels.
[snip]
I thought about this some more and I understand I sounded unfair. There
is a lot of merit and there are a lot of good ideas in your code (and of
course Jose's), which I didn't mention for the simple but cold reason
that negative feedback is more informative. But neglecting the merits is
a mistake as well. I'll incorporate some of the ideas you suggested in
the next pass through std.log.
Thanks,
Andrei
No hard feelings, I also have a tendency to just give negative feedback.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
