I see your point, but I'm not advocating here for providing multiple ways of doing the same thing as I agree it might be confusing although I'd also argue that it's already a case with boost.test for example (single header/static/shared library or BOOST_TEST, BOOST_CHECK, BOOST_CHECK_EQ accomplish pretty much the same things but there are also a trade-offs here so it depends)

Also, having a possibility for users to do so is valuable IMHO but I wouldn't expose any macros from the library.

On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 9:55 AM Hans Dembinski <hans.dembinski@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 23. Nov 2019, at 04:31, Krzysztof Jusiak via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

> However, with [Boost].UT there is nothing stopping anyone from using simple
> macros (one-lines) to achieve other frameworks syntax
> The good bit about it is that it's an opt-in 'feature' as opposed to being
> the only available option (see example below [1]).

But then you have split in the user base, some will use the macros others will use the macro-free syntax, and both will have difficulty in understanding the code of other.