On 10/14/2013 11:01 PM, Sean Kelly wrote: > On Monday, 14 October 2013 at 20:49:19 UTC, Robert Schadek wrote: >> >> I disagree on having a simple email layer among the default logger, >> because I feel that having this "special" logger in would water the >> design of the logging module. Maybe you are happy with a simple string >> message mail with fixed subject and sender, the next guy will not. And >> he will be asking for it and (we || I ) have to tell him, why the >> simple >> one is in and his version is not. I would rather have a minimal >> std(io|err), file logger version which is pure and easy to mod. > > Yes. The really important thing about getting tools like this into > the standard library is so libraries can build on the same framework > that a user application is likely to use. So now instead of hooking > differently formatted callbacks into every D library I use so I can > get log output, I can rely on them logging directly to the standard > log device. > > Different projects will have different specialized logger > requirements, so trying to find a common back-end seems like a largely > pointless effort anyway. Though specialized loggers might be a good > Dub project... I think you got, at least, my point ;-)
The Dub part is a good at least from my perspective
