Re: [boost] Suggested coding guidelines

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-04 07:15:27

Last night I thought of a problem with schemes like that one: boost is a
perfectly good verb and noun which someone might use as part of their own
header: "boost_performance.hpp", "boost_in_sales.hpp"

I realize this applies equally to all of our other macros, though. You can't
win :-(

-Dave

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Suggested coding guidelines

> From: "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> > That's the idea, but it's just so that if you write two headers on the
> same
> > day they get different #include guards. Others propose putting the path
to
> > the header in the include guard, which, when combined with mangling:
> >
> >     BOOST_PYTHON_DETAIL_EXTENSION_CLASS_DWA07022001_H_
> >
> > has no significant advantages over the simpler mangled name:
> >
> >     EXTENSION_CLASS_DWA07022001_H_
>
> FWIW, I use
>
> SUBDIR_HEADER_HPP_INCLUDED
>
> for
>
> <subdir/header.hpp>
>
> which works fine for me _and_ makes the guard name predictable (useful for
> external guards.)
>
> --
> Peter Dimov
> Multi Media Ltd.
>
>
> Info: http://www.boost.org  Unsubscribe:
<mailto:boost-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>