Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger@neoscientists.org> writes:
Does the macro's name describe what the macro generates (e.g. BOOST_XYZ_EXPRESSION) or does the macro's name describe a purpose (e.g. BOOST_REGISTER_XYZ)?
Name describes expansion : semicolon must not be added by the user Name describes purpose : semicolon must be added by the user
It indirectly depends on the design of the particular library:
If you want the user to look at the macro as part of the interface use "purpose naming" (imperative) and have the user supply a semicolon.
If you want the user to look at the macro as a code generator (e.g. convenience-shortcuts with a documented alternative that could be written manually) use "expansion naming" (noun/perfect) and put the semicolon inside the macro.
IIRC someone else proposed a policy that Paul M. agreed with -- at least conditionally -- but I can't find it in the archives. Can somebody point me to it? Since Paul is a PP expert it makes sense to give anything he agrees with a second look. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com