Macros require using namespace fakeit;

[j-mok]

Without using namespace fakeit; macros like When and Verify won't compile. I believe this is due to these macros not expanding to namespace-qualified identifiers in api_macros.hpp Correct me if I'm wrong.

For example defining When like this: #define When(call) \ ::fakeit::When(call)

would help with the issue.

[j2bbayle]

What compiler do you use? It works fine for me with the latest clang...

[j-mok]

I'm no longer using FakeIt, but when I was I compiled it with MSVC 2013. I'm wondering how come clang be able to resolve unqualified When to ::fakeit::When? Are you sure you don't have a using namespace fakeit; or an alias for When somewhere in scope?

[j2bbayle]

My message was not clear enough: with using namespace fakeit, or defining new macros like you the one you showed in your first message do work. But then I don't really see the issue here: putting the checking macros in the fakeit namespace sounds like a sensible design choice.

[j-mok]

OK, so now I'm confused, but let's reiterate in points:

• Right now FakeIt provides macros (in _apimacros.hpp) that expand into code that contains simple identifiers (declared in, and relative to the fakeit namespace). For example: #define When(call) \ When(call) The When symbol in the macro body is such an unqualified identifier.
• This in turn forces the user of FakeIt to do using namespace fakeit or an alias in their code for these macros to work.
• This cerainly is not a good design to force the user to pollute their namespace with using namespace fakeit without a good reason. The user should have the liberty to use fully qualified fakeit identifiers if they want to. That is the issue here.
• Putting the macros in the fakeit namespace won't help here a bit, as the preprocessor doesn't care about namespaces. It doesn't actually matter where you put them.
• A simple solution to the above would be change the macros' definitions to use fully qualified names like in the example in my first post.

Does that sound reasonable?

[j2bbayle]

Ok, I now see what you mean. Sorry I was totally off. It does sound reasonable indeed!