Hi
1) ri shows Logger.syslog
Logger.syslog seems not to be implememted?!!?
Also ruby-doc shows no .syslog
Why is there no Logger.new(...).self ?
2) Is there a way to log to (system) syslog?
Thanks
Berg
Hi
1) ri shows Logger.syslog
Logger.syslog seems not to be implememted?!!?
Also ruby-doc shows no .syslog
I don't understand your question?
Why is there no Logger.new(...).self ?
Because it wasn't made, there probably should be, write one, I bet people would appreciate it.
2) Is there a way to log to (system) syslog?
That might have your answer
···
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 6, 2016, at 7:30 AM, A Berger <aberger7890@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks
BergUnsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>
1) ri shows Logger.syslog
no it doesn't
Logger.syslog seems not to be implememted?!!?
Also ruby-doc shows no .syslogWhy is there no Logger.new(...).self ?
why should there be?
2) Is there a way to log to (system) syslog?
I strongly agree with Ryan and Robert.
Don't spam us and waste our time with questions that
can easily be answered by a short internet research.
When ypu show some will to do basic research by yourself
we will gladly help you.
Try searching for "ruby syslog".
Regards,
Marcus
···
Am 06.03.2016 um 14:30 schrieb A Berger:
Hello
I have to correct your answer, type
ri syslog
You dont get any result???
# ruby 2.1.5 ri 4.1.0
Googling ruby syslog
is all about class Logger,
which seems not log to syslog!
Berg
I have to correct your answer, type
ri syslog
You dont get any result???
# ruby 2.1.5 ri 4.1.0
Yes, but *not* for Logger.syslog, as stated in your original post.
Googling ruby syslog
is all about class Logger,
No it isn't. It's about *Syslog::Logger*.
And I'm sorry to say I wont reply to your posts anymore,
since you obviously still didn't get the message.
···
Am 06.03.2016 um 15:52 schrieb A Berger:
Stomar, you're an asshole. Please return to stackoverflow and continue being a stackoverlord that seems to be more where you belong. This is a place to answer people's questions no matter how simple they may be.
···
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 6, 2016, at 9:39 AM, stomar <sto.mar@web.de> wrote:
Am 06.03.2016 um 15:52 schrieb A Berger:
I have to correct your answer, type
ri syslog
You dont get any result???
# ruby 2.1.5 ri 4.1.0Yes, but *not* for Logger.syslog, as stated in your original post.
Googling ruby syslog
is all about class Logger,No it isn't. It's about *Syslog::Logger*.
And I'm sorry to say I wont reply to your posts anymore,
since you obviously still didn't get the message.Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>
The asshole is the one who first devolved the dialog into name calling.
···
On Mar 6, 2016, at 07:52, thomas Perkins <thomas.perkins23@icloud.com> wrote:
Stomar, you're an asshole. Please return to stackoverflow and continue being a stackoverlord that seems to be more where you belong. This is a place to answer people's questions no matter how simple they may be.
And in your opinion obviously also a place for name calling...?
Please note that I *did* point out Syslog::Logger to the OP
(which at least for me is the top Google result for the search
term "ruby syslog", which I also did point out to the OP).
Regards,
Marcus
···
Am 06.03.2016 um 16:52 schrieb thomas Perkins:
This is a place to answer people's questions no matter how simple they may be.
Hi
the only question is:
Why does ri say
ri syslog
"Implementation from Logger:
syslog()" ?
Berg
Stomar, you're an asshole. Please return to stackoverflow and continue
being a stackoverlord that seems to be more where you belong. This is a
place to answer people's questions no matter how simple they may be.
No.
This is a place to foster community through discussion and sharing of
knowledge and experience. It's not a first tier tech support line.
What I like to do here is encourage people to learn Ruby. A large part of
that is encouraging them to learn *how to learn Ruby*. As such I try to
tailor my answers so they illuminate the asker's fundamental problems (as I
see them), and provide guidance for the asker to solve the problem themself.
However when someone posts questions constantly, when those questions are
often close to nonsensical, with no evidence that they've put any thought
into resolving it by themself, without even giving the problem the respect
of writing it out coherently, some of us get frustrated.
The advice is:
* explain the problem you have (don't summarise -- sometimes the mistake is
hidden in the summary). Code examples are excellent.
* write out some of what you've found/tried, and how that didn't help
* this isn't Twitter. You're allowed (encouraged) to write long messages,
and save/edit various drafts before posting, and take your time. The time
you show us in asking a question will often be reflected in the time we
spend trying to answer it.
···
On 07/03/2016 1:54 AM, "thomas Perkins" <thomas.perkins23@icloud.com> wrote: