Hi Lubos,
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 16:30 +0100, Lubos Lunak wrote:
I'd like to propose changes to the SAL_INFO etc. family of the new logging
functions that would replace the somewhat strange usage
SAL_INFO("foo", "string " << s << " of length " << n)
with
SAL_INFO("foo", "string %1 of length %2", s, n )
Oooh - nice ;-)
The format-based usage uses a printf-like function that, unlike printf, is
typesafe and extensible. If people would be interested, the function itself
could be made public API (after all, there's a reason why printf is still
popular even nowadays, despite all its shortcomings).
I'd love that personally; I'd love to have it as a way to construct
OUStrings as well - potentially rather more readable and more
efficient/faster than an OUStringBuffer for those cases where we can
calculate a precise allocation size from our arguments first. There are
a lot of call sites like:
avmedia/source/framework/mediaitem.cxx:
::rtl::OUStringBuffer buf(::rtl::OUString(RTL_CONSTASCII_USTRINGPARAM(
"vnd.sun.star.Package:")));
buf.append(media);
buf.append(sal_Unicode('/'));
buf.append(filename);
o_rEmbeddedURL = buf.makeStringAndClear();
That are crying out to be one-liners with this sort of thing :-) in
fact, large numbers of rtl::OUStringBuffer usage sites could be made
more succinct, readable, maintainable and potentially more efficient
with this :-)
Attached source code has a testing implementation of the format function and
a simple logging macro. It still needs few final touches but it's generally
ready. The templates may look scary at first, but it's rather simple, they
are just making the function to take up to 9 arguments of each of the
supported arguments and the template for return type is SFINAE[1].
We can (presumably) inline them - they all evaporate away. It seems
that it does indeed turn into a single function call. I imagine we
should put the virtual 'append' methods into a separate shared object
though.
1) Yes/no ?
I love it; Stephan ?
2) It take it SAL_INFO, being in sal, has to keep binary compatibility, which
means we're stuck with the << usage if it stays that way in the 3.5 branch,
and that I'd have to make this new way binary compatible in time for 3.5 if
it's to replace it?
I suppose so :-)
3) What would 'in time for 3.5' mean in practice?
Tripple review at this stage - but, I think that's reasonably
achievable; you got one already.
5) For some of the features to work, it is necessary to build without
gcc's -pedantic. I expect we already would generate some warnings if that was
used anyway, wouldn't we ?
;-) seems more than likely. So - lovely work; I rather like the
solution (at least from an assembler perspective, from what I saw so
far). Incidentally, to compile:
g++ -S -DLINUX -DUNX -I/path/to/core/solver/unxlngi6.pro/inc/ /tmp/a.cxx
etc. I'll push it onto the TSC agenda in case we don't get consensus here.
ATB,
Michael.
--
michael.meeks@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
Context
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.