On Tuesday 29 December 2009 10:59:06 am John Maddock wrote:
That is great news,
I just tested both the two new options in bcp. The modified bcp'ed source code and the produced libraries after a plain bjam build of a selected subset of boost looks very good. I have to agree with Artyom, this is great news. This give both open and closed source library developers a very nice tool which allow use of boost in their library implementation without risking polluting the boost namespace for their users. In other words, this make use of boost more feasible for a large group of C++ developers which otherwise typically would re-invent what they needed.
one of the most missing features.
Several questions:
a) Does it rename macros as well? I mean if I have a library with defined BOOST_ASIO_ENABLE_FOO_BAR would it be renamed to NEWNAME_ASIO_ENABLE_FOO_BAR ?
No not at present. That's whay I said you can't #include two different Boost versions in the same TU.
That's something I might look at later.
This would be useful if full side-by-side header support is provided. But that is more involved than just renaming macros. Also, I think what is in now is the more important feature. Thank you for adding this John. -- Bjørn