Hacker News Reader

Comment by jzelinskie | Hacker News Reader

Wouldn't the signature of the tagged logging function be better if it was something like:

     DebugWithTags(message string, tags ...string)

This way you could easily add tags without having to explicitly allocate a []string whenever you wanted to change them.

View on HN

Perhaps it depends on how much content you're putting into the message, normally? Eg, big multi-line strings, followed by more args at the end, is not a syntax i personally prefer.

With that said, i really do wish Go supported `DebugWithTags(tags ...string, message string)` syntax. I've had so many cases where i wanted to use something similar.

For the record, if the last argument of a Golang function is variadic, you can still pass an array to it - you just have to transform the array into variadic args by appending `...` to it. So adopting the type signature above could give you the best of both worlds - the ability to use one-off tag combinations inline, but also the ability to pass predefined arrays of tags.

I hadn't actually seen their Code, it looks like they actually use `DebugWithTags([]string, string, ...interface{})`. So the `...interface{}` is the blocker here, as it appears in every logger that they have.

Though, i would agree that the order should be switched. Eg, `DebugWithTags(string, []string, ...interface{})`

It's more consistent with the printf-style counterparts:

  func (logger *LoggerImpl) DebugWithTagsf(tags []string, fmt string, args ...interface{}) {
  	logger.logwithformat(DEBUG, tags, fmt, args...)
  }

I think that function is meant to set the debug level, not to produce a log output...

+1 :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com