On Mon, 3 Mar 2014 23:28:13 +0000 sin <s...@2f30.org> wrote: > I don't agree. At the very least have a look at eprintf() from the > 'The practice of programming'. We are using similar functions in sbase > and ubase.
In sbase and ubase, this definitely makes sense. However, what we're dealing with here is a different situation. Quark requires timestamps and has a unique logging-format. Prepending "quark:" for each error-line makes the log hard to read and breaks the concept that every line has a timestamp. I'd suggest you to test it out yourself and see what works better for you. > I do not like that the type of log is passed in as an argument, it should > just be a separate function. Well, that's debatable. In my humble opinion, passing log-types as arguments brings much more flexibility in case you want to augment the range of possible log-messages. If you look at the current solution with separate functions, there is lots of unnecessary code-duplication. Cheers FRIGN -- FRIGN <d...@frign.de>
