[Devel] Feature request: error/debug message extension.
Gabriel M. Beddingfield
gabrbedd at gmail.com
Sun Jan 15 12:45:54 PST 2012
On 01/15/2012 01:58 PM, David Robillard wrote:
>> So we want to put *THAT* complexity on the host??
> If we must choose, yes! Obviously. I don't see why the heck you think
> it's better to have it in the plugins...
Requiring hosts to do simple substitutions is fine with me.
From the very start, I've been fine with something like this:
format_string(s, BUFSIZE, "number = ?", (double)3);
...and if you want more control over the formatting then you need to
bring your own. This sort of thing is very easy to implement RT-safe.
I'm *not* fine with requiring hosts to support something like this:
snprintf(s, BUFSIZE, "number = \\%-08.3g%%", (double)3);
...UNLESS there is an RT-safe implementation of snprintf() available
somewhere. (I'm even OK if the implementation actually ignores
everything except the type that's given.)
>> The plugins have the option of NOT using printf& co. for their
>> strings... but can still have string formatting.
> This seems to keep coming back to admitting this complexity is required,
> and you proposing it belongs in each and every plugin rather than the
> host. I do not agree, and I will never agree, without a really good
> argument to convince me otherwise.
> There are vastly more plugins than hosts, and there are vastly more new
> developers who want to dive in to plugin writing than people who want to
> (or need to) write a host. Code duplication is the best universal
> metric for bad design decision I know of. Offsetting all of that
> requires good reasons. The cons are obvious (they are the ones that
> always apply, which is why "complexity belongs in the host" is an LV2
> maxim and the default position). *Why* do you think this is better?
More information about the Devel