On Sep 29, 2011, at 11:23 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2011-09-29 17:05, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
so you are saying that there is a loglevel between post() and
verbose(0)? how come?
Because that's the way it is, and that the way that you insisted it
be
against Miller and my objections. You insisted that verbose() post
with
a +4 on the log level.
since i cannot remember such a thing (even after reading up the
discussion on verbose() again), i would very much like you to give a
reference for my "insistance" and your (and miller's ) objections.
what i do remember, is that i i wanted verbose(3) to be more important
than verbose(5), and that verbose(0) is less important than post().
the latter is probably the reason for "+4" [1], but my intention would
never have been to have a _gap_ between post() and verbose(0).
post() should be verbose(-1), and not verbose(-2).
the problem probably came from removing some named error loglevel, and
due to the confusion between named loglevels and numbered loglevels.
I think the numbering in verbose() is weird. What you propose makes a
little more sense than the current thing, but I think there should
just be one numbering scheme at the interface, i.e. logpost(3) should
post at the same level as verbose(3) and they both should be the same
numbers as what are in the Pd window. I completely avoid verbose()
because it means I have to look up or test how its numbers work. With
ogpost(), I just think about log level menu, which I use a lot.
.hc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mistrust authority - promote decentralization. - the hacker ethic
_______________________________________________
GEM-dev mailing list
GEM-dev@iem.at
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/gem-dev
