On Thu, 31.01.13 22:59, David Strauss (da...@davidstrauss.net) wrote: > Before I spend time rolling a patch, what are the thoughts on renaming > the "priority" arguments to something like "verbosity"? This change > would not alter the function signature, only the naming and > documentation. We would continue to use syslog's constants. > > "Priority" is confusing while developing because the numeric values > are the opposite of semantic. LOG_EMERG is, unarguably, a higher > priority to deliver and display than a LOG_DEBUG message. Yet, > LOG_DEBUG has "priority" seven while LOG_EMERG has "priority" zero. > > Try writing a conditional that allows the proper messages through > based on the verbosity setting for the application. Even once it's > right, it looks wrong on every follow-up code review because, at > higher levels of verbosity, the "maximum priority" gets raised.
We tried to stick to the syslog vocabulary there, and that's even more fucked up than you suggest: sometimes "priority" refers to the combination of log level + log facility, and sometimes only the former... It's entirely chaotic... Now I wonder what's the bigger benefit here: reusing existing terminology, or having more correct terminology... If we choose the latter, would "verbosity" really be the best choice? I am not a native english speaker, but to me this sounds much broader than "priority" or "level" do? Maybe call it "7-minus-priority" or so? ;-) Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
