Re: [boost] [Config] Support for switching between std:: and boost:: equivalents.

Subject: Re: [boost] [Config] Support for switching between std:: and boost:: equivalents.
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-06 15:35:29

On 6/6/2015 5:07 AM, Andrey Semashev wrote:
> On Friday 05 June 2015 20:14:08 Rob Stewart wrote:
>> On June 5, 2015 10:42:50 AM EDT, Edward Diener <eldiener_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>>>
>>> The one header is documented. I have the individual headers to avoid
>>> flooding the macro namespaces with lots of macros you are not going to
>>> use.
>>
>> I know you documented the everything header. I was suggesting that you not
>> document or mention the others.
>
> If those headers are public, they have to be documented. FWIW, I'm more
> interested in the individual headers and not the include-all one.

They are "public" and they are documented. The general header is for 
convenience and to give uses of the macro system a choice.

>
>>> I like to avoid macro name clashes, Having a common prefix, such as
>>> CPP, tends to do that.
>>
>> I understand the concern, but I don't think BOOST_ATOMIC_HEADER,
>> BOOST_ATOMIC_NAMESPACE, BOOST_ATOMIC_IS_STD, etc. would be likely to clash.
>
> Those names are in the namespace of Boost.Atomic by the current conventions.
> They may not be used now, but can be used later. Please, don't do it.

I agree with you and that is the reason for using a mnemonic for each 
macro. I am not against changing from BOOST_CPP_ to BOOST_CXX_. I just 
want to make sure before I do that no other Boost library or set of 
macros is using BOOST_CXX_.