>> > I mean that even if a GSoC student working on adding some
>> > functionality to Freetype (and who apparently was new to
>> > Freetype) never complained about the logging functionality then
>> > the logging code is not a problem at all.
>>
>> Well, as far as I can see, it's exactly as Armin described the
>> situation: people insert `printf' statements for debugging. And
>> the final code usually missed important debugging calls...
>
> How does that justify adding new logging library or changing the
> current logger code? That sounds more like current tracing
> statements should be improved.
Indeed, these are two different things. What I tried to point out was
that students normally don't reach the level of understanding the
FreeType code so that they are wondering how and where to add proper
tracing statements.
Regarding justification of adding a logging library I can only say
that it sounds like a good idea to me. There are chances that the
GSoC project gets finished successfully (this is, the student did his
or her job well) but the code will be rejected later on because it
doesn't work as expected. This might happen, but even then revisiting
the whole debugging stuff is a good thing: for example, it would also
be *very* helpful to get a better structure into the debugging output
(whatever such a structure would look like) to make it more readable –
and more consistent between the various font drivers.
Werner
_______________________________________________
Freetype-devel mailing list
Freetype-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel
