Re: [boost] Suggested coding guidelines

From: Ed Brey (edbrey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-03 08:34:28

From: "Greg Chicares" <chicares_at_[hidden]>
>
> gcc is strict about the undefined behavior of
>
>   #ifdef 0
>     won't work with gcc
>     what preprocessor token would the lone apostrophe belong to?
>   #endif

To clarify, #ifdef 0 can trivially be changed to #if 0 to make that line
well-formed; however, the apostrophe continues to present a problem.

On other matters, the guidelines document appears to no longer be in the
yahoo groups files section.  Should I be looking someplace new?

In particular, I was interested to read the rationale for mangling the
header guards with a initials and a date.  It seems that such mangling
provides incrementally little value since there exist many other
non-mangled macros in the code, and may even lend a false sense of
security.  A consistent style of BOOST_XXX seems to be adequate, so long
as the include guards match the file path so to avoid conflicts within
boost.  If the end user is worried about a conflict, he need only grep
his code for BOOST_, and needs to do so with or without include guard
mangling.