From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-03 10:12:25
----- Original Message -----
From: "Aleksey Gurtovoy" <alexy_at_[hidden]>
> 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
> > guideline? It works sufficiently well, and is sufficiently easy to
> > I don't understand why it generates so much interest!
> May be because the recommended include guards are ugly and seem random?
The second part is intentional. The first part is a consequence of that.
> I can imagine that for some people combination of this two properties is
> enough to dislike the guideline even if it's otherwise OK.
The current guidelines allow GUIDs or the initals+date thing. This guideline
affects at most 3 tokens in any header and is not so consequential, IMO.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk