Re: __FUNCTION__ and debug.

On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 09:08, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 04:09, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> > On Sunday 27 October 2002 05.02, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
> > I am all for the principle of automatically emitting which function
> > the debug trace is from, but agree with Adrian that the trace() name
> > is perhaps a bit ambigious.
> >
> > Why not simply let it be debug() and gradually clean up the debug
> > statements who manually emits a function name to not do so..?
>
> because debug is a define, and defines can't be overloaded,only
> replaced. debug_printf or something like that is ok.

AND because there are statements that are informational, not debugging
in nature, and for those we should have an output that looks like the
current one - i.e. the cache startup messages.

We could rename the current debug() to info() for those one - I'd be
happy with that.

Rob