<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Eli Barzilay <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:eli@barzilay.org">eli@barzilay.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">> I think that's where logging sexp (or other objects) would be<br> > useful.  For example, have the log receiver receiving a sexp and<br> > immediately handle the information contained in sexp without having<br> > to incur the cost of parsing.<br> <br> </div></div>There are at least two features of the current system that provide<br> answers for this: the `log-info' and its friends are macros -- they<br> don't do anything if there is no receiver, which makes it convenient<br> to give them an argument that will do whatever processing you want to<br> do.  So you can pass around sexprs, and do whatever you want to do<br> with them before you turn them into strings for the output.  Also,<br> `log-message' receives an argument that contains arbitrary<br> information, which you can use to hook additional bits.<br> <div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Okay - I'll look into how that works.<br><br>Thanks,<br>yc<br><br></div></div>