On Saturday, 11 October 2014 at 23:37:42 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
I had the same feeling as Jakob about an `Appender` already in the base class and would have expected a bare bones abstract class + a batteries included version using `Appender`. (A bit like Java's …Listener and …Adapter classes.) That seems more clean to me in a representational fashion. Technically we can just ignore the extra field... It also seems legit to reduce pressure on the GC, by resetting the `Appender` instead of nulling it.
What if a Logger down the chain keeps the string around and you overwrite it?
