Kevin, which side are you advocating here?
Definitions:
'AGAINST' means to NOT provide the ability to log exceptions at levels
other than ERROR
'FOR' means that that functionality SHOULD be provided.
First you say:
[Kevin Butler wrote]
> [Guido van Rossum wrote]
> > I'd like to call YAGNI on this. Also on the idea of being able
> > to pass an exception to all logging levels.
>
> I'd like to "Not Need It" as well, but the code I've written
> using log4j and the code I've written & maintained with a couple of other
> logging systems have needed it.
which implies that you are AGAINST.
Then:
> That log statement is useful in debugging or maybe as a warning,
> but is definitely not an ERROR, because the computer has a
> valid way to continue the operation.
which implies you are FOR it.
Then:
> [Jeremy Hilton wrote:]
> > The feature is simple to explain and implement, and seems to have low
> > implementation cost. So I certainly think it meets the simplest thing
> > that could possibly work criteria.
>
> +1
>
which implies again that you are FOR it.
> And it promotes "there's one obvious way to do it".
> And it is consistent with existing de facto standard systems.
which I am not sure if that implies you are FOR it or confused over which
side Jeremy is supporting.
Confused-ly yours, :)
Trent
--
Trent Mick
TrentM@ActiveState.com
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