[Development] Let's get rid of qDebug/qWarning/qCritical!

[Konstantin Ritt]

I have a controversial proposition: make qDebug/qWarning/qCritical support
logging category and deprecate qCDebug/qCWarning/qCCritical [1].

[1]  https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,74889

Regards,
Konstantin


2014/1/8 Koehne Kai <Kai.Koehne at digia.com>

>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia.com at qt-project.org
> > [mailto:development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia.com at qt-project.org] On
> > Behalf Of Koehne Kai
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 10:13 AM
> > To: Giuseppe D'Angelo
> > Cc: development at qt-project.org
> > Subject: Re: [Development] Let's get rid of qDebug/qWarning/qCritical!
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Giuseppe D'Angelo [mailto:dangelog at gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 9:54 AM
> > > To: Koehne Kai
> > > Cc: development at qt-project.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Development] Let's get rid of qDebug/qWarning/qCritical!
> > >
> > > On 8 January 2014 09:35, Koehne Kai <Kai.Koehne at digia.com> wrote:
> > > > - Current #ifdef's, environment variables etc should be replaced
> > > > with an unconditional qCDebug/qCWarning/qCCritical
> > >
> > > That's not doable in 100% of the cases, f.i. if one has to compile
> > > extra code to get the debug information that needs to be printed.
>
> Ah, sorry, you meant overhead for additional code. Yeah, you're of course
> right that there might be code in critical code paths etc where it still
> makes sense to keep an #ifdef. But I doubt that we've a lot of cases like
> this.
>
> Regards
>
> Kai
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20140108/fd625140/attachment.html>