In some mail from Balazs Scheidler, sie said: > > > For that matter, using %(blah)foo just makes processing harder, not > > easier and definately not "obvious". > > > > If I see "%(user)s %(host)s" in a string somewhere, I would expect it > > to be output somewhere as a whole, not in parts. Since you're going > > down vararg lane (or stdargs), you may as well use proper value pairing, > > such as was suggested earlier - log(..., USER|STRING, username, ...) > > Hmm... Is USER and STRING above a numeric constant, that what the operator > '|' makes me believe so. We have to solve two problems: > > 1) identifying the tag USER is the tag, STRING is the type of data being passed. I chose constants rather than freeform text to get around the problem of different application developers using different tags for the same thing. Is it a user or login id or what...give them a finite pool and let them choose one. > 2) create a handy interface for the programmer to format values [...] Now if this were java, each tag would be an object and the tag/value pair would just be the result of serialising it. Again, I don't necessarily want the programmer deciding how to format the values aside from saying what type of data it is. I don't want to see this kind of thing: "srchost", "%16s", caller Plus, I doubt you can currently teach gcc about that for printf-style format-arg checking. Darren _______________________________________________ LogAnalysis mailing list LogAnalysisat_private http://lists.shmoo.com/mailman/listinfo/loganalysis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Dec 31 2002 - 15:15:25 PST