Re: [boost] Re: [congif] BOOST_BEFRIEND_TEMPLATE, BOOST_PRIVATE

From: JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-03 18:44:48

Hi Jonathan!

----- Mensaje original -----
De: Jonathan Turkanis <technews_at_[hidden]>
Fecha: Viernes, Marzo 4, 2005 0:08 am
Asunto: [boost] Re: [congif] BOOST_BEFRIEND_TEMPLATE, BOOST_PRIVATE

> JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z wrote:
[...]
> > The macros I'm using are:
> 
> > BOOST_PRIVATE_IF_MEMBER_TEMPLATE_FRIENDS
> > BOOST_PROTECTED_IF_MEMBER_TEMPLATE_FRIENDS
> 
> These would be okay with me. But sometimes I use a macro for 
> specifying the type
> of derivation, and
> 
>    struct derived_class
>        : BOOST_PRIVATE_IF_MEMBER_TEMPLATE_FRIENDS base_class
>    { };
> 
> seems a bit long.

Yep it is long, but BOOST_PRIVATE covers too much semantic
scape: what if in the future a similar workaround is needed
to make up for another, unrelated defficiency? This is
not hypothetical, in fact I'm already using

BOOST_MULTI_INDEX_PRIVATE_IF_USING_DECL_FOR_TEMPL_FUNCTIONS

that does the same thing (turning private into public)
in some compilers that do not support in-class using declarations
for template functions. 

Admittedly, it'd be nicer if we can come up with a shorter,
yet descriptive name.

Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo

PS: OT: Jonathan, weren't you going to promote a scopeguard
impl to boost/detail? I'm waiting for that so that I can reduce
my own codebase :)