From: Krzysztof Jusiak (krzysztof_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-11-24 18:26:15
I see your point, but I'm not advocating here for providing multiple ways
of doing the same thing as I agree it might be confusing although I'd also
argue that it's already a case with boost.test for example (single
header/static/shared library or BOOST_TEST, BOOST_CHECK, BOOST_CHECK_EQ
accomplish pretty much the same things but there are also a trade-offs here
so it depends)
Also, having a possibility for users to do so is valuable IMHO but I
wouldn't expose any macros from the library.
On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 9:55 AM Hans Dembinski <hans.dembinski_at_[hidden]>
> > On 23. Nov 2019, at 04:31, Krzysztof Jusiak via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > However, with [Boost].UT there is nothing stopping anyone from using
> > macros (one-lines) to achieve other frameworks syntax
> > The good bit about it is that it's an opt-in 'feature' as opposed to
> > the only available option (see example below ).
> But then you have split in the user base, some will use the macros others
> will use the macro-free syntax, and both will have difficulty in
> understanding the code of other.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk