Boost logo

Boost :

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
> Examples are multiple inclusion guards like BOOST_CONFIG_HPP or
> configuration artifacts like BOOST_NO_MEMBER_TEMPLATES.


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

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

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at