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
On 23. Nov 2019, at 04:31, Krzysztof Jusiak via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
However, with [Boost].UT there is nothing stopping anyone from using simple macros (one-lines) to achieve other frameworks syntax The good bit about it is that it's an opt-in 'feature' as opposed to being the only available option (see example below [1]).
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.