Re: [boost] Boost public interface macro names

From: Jens Maurer (Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-11-12 12:47:59

Beman Dawes wrote:
> 
> In the past we have used a number of macro names, always prefixed by
> BOOST_.
> 
> Examples are multiple inclusion guards like BOOST_CONFIG_HPP or
> configuration artifacts like BOOST_NO_MEMBER_TEMPLATES.

>     BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT( a == b );

Thus, we seem to have three classes of macros now:
 - Internal include guards, (_HPP suffix)
 - Internal configuration (mostly non-function-like)
 - Public (mostly function-like) macros

> 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 do not think so.  Macro names are global, so we have to prefix
some kind of namespace identifier to reserve a "local" namespace.
I prefer the prefix BOOST_ to any abbreviation such as BST_.

> Maybe I'm the only one that worries about public interface macro names, but
> I'd like to someone else can come up with a better scheme before we commit
> ourselves to names that are likely to be around for many years.

I think BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT is as nice as we can get with our current
nicely non-imperialist put-everything-in-a-namespace approach.  C++ is
a bit more verbose in general anyway, so users should not be alienated by
a slightly more lengthy macro name.  Oh, and I want to have all macros
ALL_UPPERCASE.

However, we may want to reconsider our internal configuration macro names,
for example prefix them with BOOST_CONFIG_ or so, to make sure we can always
choose the most obvious name for public macros.

Jens Maurer