|
From: Julian S. <js...@ac...> - 2009-08-24 14:44:04
|
On Sunday 23 August 2009 12:16:33 am Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Bart Van > > Assche<bar...@gm...> wrote: > > I agree that most if not all VG_(printf)() calls should be replaced by > > VG_(message)() calls, but I'm not sure that it is a good idea to > > rename VG_(printf)() into something else. > > The motivation is this: if it should only be used in rare cases, then > give it a non-standard name so that people don't use it by default > without thinking. Overall I'm in favour of the changes you suggest (making less use of VG_(printf)). But I'd prefer not to rename it to VG_(something_so_totally_obscure_youd_never_think_to_use_it). How about VG_(dprintf), the d to emphasise it's debuggingness? I think dprintfs are a fairly widely understood thing. J |