<div dir="ltr">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)<div>Also, having a possibility for users to do so is valuable IMHO but I wouldn't expose any macros from the library.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 9:55 AM Hans Dembinski <<a href="mailto:hans.dembinski@gmail.com">hans.dembinski@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br> > On 23. Nov 2019, at 04:31, Krzysztof Jusiak via Boost <<a href="mailto:boost@lists.boost.org" target="_blank">boost@lists.boost.org</a>> wrote:<br> <br> > However, with [Boost].UT there is nothing stopping anyone from using simple<br> > macros (one-lines) to achieve other frameworks syntax<br> > The good bit about it is that it's an opt-in 'feature' as opposed to being<br> > the only available option (see example below [1]).<br> <br> 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.<br> <br> </blockquote></div>