-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2011-09-29 17:05, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > >> so you are saying that there is a loglevel between post() and >> verbose(0)? how come? > > > Because that's the way it is, and that the way that you insisted it be > against Miller and my objections. You insisted that verbose() post with > a +4 on the log level.
since i cannot remember such a thing (even after reading up the discussion on verbose() again), i would very much like you to give a reference for my "insistance" and your (and miller's ) objections. what i do remember, is that i i wanted verbose(3) to be more important than verbose(5), and that verbose(0) is less important than post(). the latter is probably the reason for "+4" [1], but my intention would never have been to have a _gap_ between post() and verbose(0). post() should be verbose(-1), and not verbose(-2). the problem probably came from removing some named error loglevel, and due to the confusion between named loglevels and numbered loglevels. ffgasmdr IOhannes [1] http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/2011-02/016578.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk6EjXIACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvRSQQCg3deI/7l+xVfZmTInblrY6OYt BasAn349IhRl9wVJKC5eS6eugaFUSDO3 =zafq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ GEM-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/gem-dev
