From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (alexy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-03 10:06:52
David Abrahams wrote:
> > A consistent style of BOOST_XXX seems to be adequate, so long
> > as the include guards match the file path so to avoid conflicts within
> > boost. If the end user is worried about a conflict, he need only grep
> > his code for BOOST_, and needs to do so with or without include
> > guard mangling.
>
> Yeah, that would probably be enough, but it requires more
> care to get right than initials and a date. What is the problem with this
> guideline? It works sufficiently well, and is sufficiently easy to follow.
> I don't understand why it generates so much interest!
May be because the recommended include guards are ugly and seem random? ;).
I can imagine that for some people combination of this two properties is
enough to dislike the guideline even if it's otherwise OK.
Aleksey