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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk