From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (alexy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-03 10:06:52
David Abrahams wrote:
> > A consistent style of BOOST_XXX seems to be adequate, so long
> > as the include guards match the file path so to avoid conflicts within
> > boost. If the end user is worried about a conflict, he need only grep
> > his code for BOOST_, and needs to do so with or without include
> > guard mangling.
> Yeah, that would probably be enough, but it requires more
> care to get right than initials and a date. What is the problem with this
> guideline? It works sufficiently well, and is sufficiently easy to follow.
> I don't understand why it generates so much interest!
May be because the recommended include guards are ugly and seem random? ;).
I can imagine that for some people combination of this two properties is
enough to dislike the guideline even if it's otherwise OK.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk