Re: [boost] Boost public interface macro names

From: Jesse Jones (jejones_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-11-07 16:01:51

> [snip]
>
>    BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT( a == b );
>    BOOST_TEST_ASSERT( c == d );
>    BOOST_TEST_VERIFY( e == f );
>
>Let's assume those names do a good job of denoting the semantics, and talk
>about their lexical aspect.
>
>My question then is, "What should be the form of boost public interface
>macro names?"
>
>My worry is that the all uppercase, prefixed by BOOST_ rule produces names
>ugly enough that programmers will shy away from using them.  Is there
>another scheme that is less ugly, but still unlikely to produce name
>conflicts?

I would prefer it if macros were all upper case. For consistency I'd also
make all the debugging functions upper case even if some of them are
implemented as functions.

BOOST_TEST_ASSERT is an awfully ugly name, but I think boost has to use
something like that to avoid conflicts with existing code. However clients
can always use the preprocessor to create a nicer alias. Not ideal, but
neither is the C proproccessor. :-)

  -- Jesse