1) Yes / No for inclusion into std.experimental
Yes
2) Yes / No for inclusion into Phobos in its current state
No
3) If you have answered "No" for (2) : list of mandatory
changes that are needed to make you vote "Yes"
I can't say Yes until I've actually used it.
4) Any additional comments for author.
None for the author as I detailed my concerns in Github, though I
should apologize for being very lax about participating (RL has
been busy). However, I wanted to address the suffix notation as
I suggested it. What I was going for was consistency with the
write/writef method signatures to keep things consistent. I felt
it would be good to make the two similar since they do similar
things.
My suggestion for conditional versions, logc and logcf, I believe
are the ones causing some heartburn. If you look at how write
works, what does this mean?
write(a < b, "some message");
Am I writing conditionally or am I writing out something like
"truesome message"? In phobos, it is the latter. To have
consistency, we can't simply make the first parameter be a
condition as it would prevent us from doing something like this:
log(canFind("foobar", "bar"));
Second, the way I look at it, you can read the methods like this:
write - write
writef - write formatted
log - log
logf - log formatted
logc - log conditionally
logcf - log conditionally and formatted
Having that english-like meaning I think will make it easier to
recognize what's being done.
tl;dr I proposed having the log interface consistent with the
write interface (from a parameter standpoint) and suggested the
"c" suffix to make it clear that conditional logging is being
performed vs. the first parameter being a boolean that's part of
the log message.
