Re: [boost] Boost.Test updates in trunk: need for (mini) review?

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Test updates in trunk: need for (mini) review?
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-10-22 22:52:44

On 10/22/2012 6:23 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
> Le 22/10/12 22:20, Daniel James a écrit :
>> On 22 October 2012 20:54, Vicente J. Botet Escriba
>> <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> I disagree. Using BOOST_TEST_ as prefix even if longer make the code
>>> clearest. This is one of the Boost rules and any Boost library should
>>> follow
>>> them.
>> It isn't, the rule is:
>>
>>> Macro (gasp!) names all uppercase and begin with BOOST_.
>> That's from http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html
>>
>>
> You are right, but how we can ensure that two independent Boost
> libraries don't deliver the same macro?

I agree in general. We need something following BOOST_ in every library 
which is distinguishable from another library when macros are used. As 
an example the preprocessor library starts all macros with BOOST_PP_. My 
TTI library starts all macros with BOOST_TTI_. Not doing something like 
this will create a nightmare, which can only be relieved by very clever 
use of #define and #undef, if there occur the same names following 
BOOST_ in two libraries.