+1
Matthew Flatt wrote:
At Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:51:47 -0600, Robby Findler wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Grant Rettke <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Eli Barzilay <[email protected]> wrote:
On Feb 19, Robby Findler wrote:
I think Eli's asking 'why not do (log-info (format "~s"
my-sexp))?'. Right?
[Uh, yeah, but that looks so much boring...]
Is (log-info-sexpr ...) less boring?
It is such a short macro; do we really need to add 3 more exports to
scheme/base for that?
Maybe it's not that `log-message' needs to change, but that the
`log-error', etc. forms make the wrong thing easy.
Currently,
(log-error expr)
expands to
(let ([l (current-logger)])
(when (log-level? l 'error)
(log-message l 'error expr (current-continuation-marks))))
What if we change it to
(let ([l (current-logger)])
(when (log-level? l 'error)
(let ([v expr])
(log-message l 'error (format "~s" v) v))))
?
This changes both the formatting and the value supplied to log
receivers by `log-error'. Programmers who want more control over the
message and data can still use `log-message'.
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
