Re: [boost] [inspect] More changes to Inspection Report

Subject: Re: [boost] [inspect] More changes to Inspection Report
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-09 18:38:40

Rene Rivera-2 wrote:
> 
> Marshall Clow wrote:
>> There is a way to deal with this which doesn't require any code
>> changes. The macros in question are defined in a file
>> "/usr/include/AssertMacros.h", which is guarded by an
>> 
>> #ifndef __ASSERTMACROS__ #define __ASSERTMACROS__ ...... #endif
>> 
>> construct. If we were to define __ASSERTMACROS__ in the darwin.jam
>> file, then these macros would never be defined.
>> 
>> However, this could lead to other problems down the road.
> 
> It would lead to problems now for anyone using BBv2 for non-Boost (or 
> mixed) development and happens to be using those macros. If we had a 
> standard "prefix.hpp" & "suffix.hpp" that all libraries could include we 
> could def+undef the guard while including Boost headers. But this is 
> still fragile as people could include the AssertMacros.h before Boost 
> headers.
> 

I've read recent discussion and the ticket 2115 [1] and my impression is
that this
problem has not been solved, has it?

Is there any recommendation how to cope with this problem in Boost
Libraries.

[1] https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/2115

Best regards,

-----
-- 
Mateusz Loskot
http://mateusz.loskot.net
-- 
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/-inspect--More-changes-to-Inspection-Report-tp27225588p27843621.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.