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

From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-03 19:00:04

JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z wrote:
> Hi Jonathan!

Hi!

>>    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)

I see your point.

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

Would there be much harm in letting BOOST_PRIVATE expand to public if at least
one of these deficiencies is present?

Jonathan