> On Jan. 5, 2015, 10:47 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > Mind adding some tests for the stringification? :)

Oops, done!


> On Jan. 5, 2015, 10:47 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/url.hpp, lines 70-71
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/29533/diff/1/?file=805385#file805385line70>
> >
> >     Shouldn't this be an output stream operator instead of stringify? (e.g. 
> > Duration / Bytes). That way, you can do both of the following:
> >     
> >     ```
> >     stringify(url);
> >     LOG(INFO) << url;
> >     ```
> >     
> >     As opposed to requiring the explicit stringify call:
> >     ```
> >     LOG(INFO) << stringify(url);
> >     ```

Okay, but what's so bad about being explicit!? ;-) The original intention of 
stringify was to have overloads (hence all the overloads in stringify.hpp) and 
then be explicit in all of the stringifications. In otherwords, when would we 
ever use stringify with LOG?


- Benjamin


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/29533/#review66739
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Jan. 21, 2015, 5:44 p.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/29533/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Jan. 21, 2015, 5:44 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Ben Mahler.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos-git
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> See summary.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/Makefile.am 
> 8e51957d141af0be64cac42f65e03bca5929c8a9 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/url.hpp PRE-CREATION 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/tests/url_tests.cpp PRE-CREATION 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/29533/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Benjamin Hindman
> 
>

Reply via email to