From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-22 14:42:44
At 02:37 PM 5/22/2001, Vesa Karvonen wrote:
>"Aleksey Gurtovoy" <alexy_at_[hidden]>:
>[snip]
>> So I am all in favor of the new technique!
>
>I like it too.
>
>> There is one issue with the library that I personally would like to
>> see resolved at this stage, though: names of the macros. IMO, now they
>> are too short and too generic for macro names, even with the BOOST_
>> prefix. I understand that longer names could cause some portability
>> problems, but still I would prefer to see something less general/more
>> long in place of BOOST_IF, BOOST_INC or BOOST_DEC. At least the
>> library name, or some other indication of scope of these macros should
>> be added, e.g. as I did it in the above example (BOOST_PREPROCESSOR_IF,
>> BOOST_PREPROCESSOR_REPEAT, etc.).
>
>All of the library, including naming, is obviously tentative at this
stage.
>I would personally prefer a somewhat shorter prefix like CPP, which is
the
>name I also had in mind for the library, but I can live with PREPROCESSOR
>if that is the consensus.
Pending killer arguments from others, I [slightly] prefer the CPP names,
although I could certainly live with PREPROCESSOR. But I do agree with
Alexsey that just plain BOOST_IF, etc, is a bit too generic.
--Beman