2011/5/30 Vincent <[email protected]>: > On Mon, 30 May 2011 02:58:00 +0200, Jose Armando Garcia <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Why is verbosity not useful? > > Probably, because it's too expensive? :) > >> You just remember that the developer that wrote the IO layer was nice >> enough to log all IO inputs at verbosity level 3. > > OK, but saying this you assume we also have level 1 and 2! Can you give an > example how your code will look with ALL these levels implemented? > I fear on 3 LOC you'll have 10 lines just to provide 'verbosity' logic. This > is why it's expensive. > Problem is not only in digits - HOW you'll decide how many levels to have > and what to show on every level? Don't you scared for your head if it's 1M > LOC app? :) > > I can say more: looking at program trace I more interested not in 'give me > more details', but 'give me details on this object'. In your case > it's IO object - turning ON verbosity, you do it for ALL logging, while you > need just an IO module. What you say on this? :) > In this case I prefer snippets like this: > > // some IO logic > version(log_io) logDbg(`SENT: ` ~ line); > > It allows to see only what you need and I don't give a damn if it's longer > for two words. > > Jose, just take it right: long term log libraries are OK > _for_people_who_use_it_. But I see no any reason to copy again and again > old-time solutions - features are not only accumulated, but outdated too > (this is why you are with D, not C :) ). So I want 'clean up' old stuff and > implement just really necessary capabilities (Which Andrei named as "simple > streaming" :) ). Before you(we) implement something, don't think "Oh, we > have verbosity and we can use it like this!" - start from GOAL: "We have > this task, how it can be implemented?" - sure, from this point you never > even think about 'verbosities' (depends from mind, OK). > Well, since people are conservative, I don't expect too much attention, but > anyway thanks you read my ideas - hope it help. >
Your solution (using version(log_io)) doesn't solve the problem/use case I presented. I recommend you study the domain before suggesting solutions.
