Re: [boost] Boost public interface macro names

From: Kevlin Henney (kevlin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-11-07 13:59:42

In message <4.3.2.7.2.20001107124740.00b8cf20_at_[hidden]>, Beman
Dawes <beman_at_[hidden]> writes
>I'm trying to discover if it makes sense to have two conventions, one for 
>implementation artifact macros, and another for public interface macros.  I 
>don't see that as arrogant, just trying to find a better way.
[...]
>Maybe I'm the only one who finds it really jarring to see 
>BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT as a function name in the middle of mainline code, and 
>would like to find a better convention.

Well, I find it jarring to see macros, period, so a looming BOOST_ is
not going to sway me away from upper case. However, perhaps we could
consider BOOST_DETAIL_ as the prefix for internal macros.

>Perhaps I should just work on a core proposal for a new language 
>feature.  All of the macro uses we are talking about are needed to get 
>__FILE__ and __LINE__.  How about two new special symbols:
>
>namespace boost {
>   static_assert( bool exp, const char * file=__FILE_AT_USE,
>                  int line=__LINE_AT_USE );
>}
>
>The compiler is required to replace these with the appropriate value at the 
>point of a call to static_assert(), rather than at point of declaration.

And these would be constrained only to arg lists? Otherwise, I think we
have some interesting ODR issues. Interesting idea.

Kevlin
____________________________________________________________

  Kevlin Henney                   phone:  [phone]
  Curbralan Limited               mobile: [phone]
  mailto:kevlin_at_[hidden]     fax:    [phone]
  http://www.curbralan.com
____________________________________________________________