[Neal Norwitz] > You could have the logging methods return an int/bool, > 1 if succesfully logged, 0 on failure. Let the caller > decide what to do. You could even return a failure > object or None. The failure object would contain > (or be) the exception/problem. This violates the principle that logging should be "set and forget". Having the logger fail silently has, in past experience, caused fewer problems than having to handle errors from the logging system - yet another headache for the developer! Regards Vinay
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4