[PD-dev] status of verbose() in 0.43?

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Feb 16, 2011, at 4:26 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2011-02-16 04:53, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>
>> Do you remember why those "incr 4" and "level+4" are there to begin
>
> yes, so that "verbose(0," is not the same as "error("
>
>> with?  I think removing that is the best solution,
>
> the duplication should be removed.
>
>> and then leave 0-5
>> levels.  That way 5=all.
>
> i don't think so.
> "verbose(3," should have higher priority than "verbose(6,"
>
> even if nobody uses such high verbosity levels now (at least i don't
> know any use cases), "all" should be ALL, and not <=5.
>
> it's a conceptual difference, and we shan't mingle our ideas with what
> might be practical with conceptual differences
> (ah, it's still early in the morning; forgive my pompousness)



I'm fine with "all" idea. I'm talking about something a bit different.  
I think its confusing that the verbose() function adds 4.  That means  
there are two number schemes: the post 0-5 and beyond, and the verbose  
number scheme which is 4 and beyond, but they don't line up, i.e.  
verbose(4,"") is not the same as post(4,"").  And there is no  
post(4,"") is C space.  And 4 is totally arbitrary since the normal  
levels are 0-5.

How about we choose just function/proc: post(level, message) or  
verbose(level, message), allow them to use any number, and remove the  
+4?  Then have this the same on Tcl and C?  We lose no functionality  
and its much easier to understand.

.hc

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"A cellphone to me is just an opportunity to be irritated wherever you  
are." - Linus Torvalds