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

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Test updates in trunk: need for (mini) review?
From: Paul Mensonides (pmenso57_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-10-22 23:36:37

On 10/22/2012 7:52 PM, Edward Diener wrote:
> On 10/22/2012 6:23 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
>> 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.

Not that I'm advocating this, but one could just include the entire set 
of Boost libraries all at once in a regression test to detect 
conflicting definitions.  Personally, I think the boost namespace is too 
full already.  In header declarations, you can't have using boost::abc, 
so you end up qualifying everything as with boost::abc::xyz which is 
really tedious and only "special" libraries get a plain boost::xyz.  I'd 
rather just have abc::xyz which I think results in better 
modularization.  In that sense, aside from a community and vetting 
process, Boost becomes a library distribution mechanism rather than a 
supposedly coherent framework.

Regards,
Paul Mensonides