Am Sonntag, 26. November 2006 23:54 schrieb Christian Ohm: > On Sunday, 26 November 2006 at 18:33, Dennis Schridde wrote: > > I think it was only 029 (debug alignment) where I was not sure what the > > benefit would be. > > Oh, I just changed this for myself mainly. I think the debug output is > nicer that way, if you think it's useless, just drop the patch. > > > And 028 (LOG_WARNING), where I don't know if another debug type would > > bring any benefit. > > I thought a debug level somewhere between ERROR and NEVER would be nice, > for things that might be problematic, but don't have a separate debug > category. In a normal compile, it is ignored (unless explicitely > activated), in a debug compile it is always shown. Well, it seemed like > a good idea at the time. I thought about that again for a while... I also thought about habits.
In the end I came to this result: I usually don't use anything between "all" and nothing (actually I think I never did). Now your LOG_WARNING comes and I got some idea: LOG_DEBUG, LOG_INFO, LOG_WARNING, LOG_ERROR And, if someone thinks they are usefull, create an additional parameter like PART_SCRIPT, PART_3D, ... Or: (Instead of the PART_*) just create a DEBUG() macro, which also passes the __FUNCTION__ (might make finding the location even easier). What do you think? --Dennis
pgpPFC5P3VTNp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
