Open ned14 opened 4 years ago
I have not seen any serious discussion of the requirement for prefixing all macros with Boost on the mailing list. Could you give me a link to the email thread, please?
@hkaiser sounds from the related discussion that this is a good thing to do even for the include guards. Shouldn't be hard to tackle. Should we simply prepend BOOST_
on all of them or should the names be simplified in any way as well? I am unfamiliar with the idiom of using those UUIDs or whatever they are...
@jefftrull Just prepending BOOST_
should be sufficient. We have used the UUIDs just to make sure the guards are unique. There is no real scheme behind the naming of the guards.
There is one remaining macro in the list above, from Phoenix - we would have to coordinate with them https://github.com/boostorg/phoenix/issues/90
I just realized that the remaining Phoenix macros are from Spirit Classic and (judging from a quick look at their issue tracker) are unlikely to be addressed. At this late date it would be better to upgrade to V2 or X3 than to pursue the last few macros.
The following macros are missing a BOOST_ prefix, which is against Boost library guidelines. I have logged the Phoenix and Spirit issues separately at https://github.com/boostorg/phoenix/issues/90 and https://github.com/boostorg/spirit/issues/562: