On Friday 01 January 2010 01:29:03 pm John Maddock wrote:
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.
I assume that for full side-by-side inclusioin in the same TU we would need to rename macros and also rename the boost/ directory (and hense all #includes). Anything else?
I think that is what I did when I played with this, and that it will do the trick together with what you have in now. I think what is also is a possible issue is: #include SOME_MACRO directives. If these are all prefixed with BOOST_ they get a unique name, but they also need to expand to the correct include file path. The --namespace-alias option is great when not using boost in interfaces, but it is not useful in the side-by-side header case. The method I had in mind to allow boost to be used as normally as possible was to allow replacing boost namespace with nested namespace mylib::boost. In implementation files a "using mylib" directive would allow relatively normal use of boost and still have separate namespace protection for the interfaces. Supporting replacing boost with a nested namespace easily gets very tricky without enforcing stricter coding conventions with explicit end-namespace tagging in boost. So I think allowing replacing boost with nested namespace is not worth it unless someone come up with a clever and simple way of making this work correctly. -- Bjørn