Yesterday, Greg Hendershott wrote:
>
> - As long as the hood is open, I'd love if a new log-xxx were `format'
> style (more like `error') instead of a single string. i.e. 95% of
> the time I'm typing (log-debug (format ...)).
+1, but see below.
> - I'd want to choose different levels for different modules. Most
> commonly that would be an elevated level for a few specific modules,
> and a lower level for "all other". For example, "I want 'debug for
> under-dev.rkt, and 'warning for all others". However there could be
> times when it would be helpful to supply a list of arbitrary (module
> level) pairs. Such as 'debug for foo.rkt, 'info for bar.rkt, 'info
> for baz.rkt, and 'warning for all other.
I forgot about that -- so maybe an imporved extension to the ,log
command would also have these <logspec>s:
(or <logspec> ...)
(and <logspec> ...) ; <-- for completeness
(not <logspec>) ; <--
(which would still require an explicit function to be a syntactic
`lambda' or `λ' form...)
So you can write things like
,log (or warning (and debug "/some/prefix"))
But that's just a quick guess at something that would be convenient,
perhaps an explicit function is almost as quick to write, so there's
no need to make a little log-selection language for this...?
> - It would be neat if submodules could somehow be used to mitigate
> the "cost" of logging, as they do for tests or srcdoc. However I
> guess it's apples and oranges?
That's the purpose of `log-warning' etc -- they're macros so they
don't need to evaluate the string unless someone's listening. And
that's a reason to have just a string argument, though it could
probably be extended to a one or more forms that would be evaluated
only if needed, and used as arguments to `error'. (And BTW, that
would be an incompatible change, since strings like "foo~bar" that are
used now would need to change to "foo~~bar".)
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
____________________
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
