[boost] Re: Re: [congif] BOOST_BEFRIEND_TEMPLATE, BOOST_PRIVATE

JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z wrote:

Hi Jonathan!

Hi!

...

struct derived_class : BOOST_PRIVATE_IF_MEMBER_TEMPLATE_FRIENDS base_class { };

seems a bit long.

Yep it is long, but BOOST_PRIVATE covers too much semantic scape: what if in the future a similar workaround is needed to make up for another, unrelated defficiency? This is not hypothetical, in fact I'm already using

BOOST_MULTI_INDEX_PRIVATE_IF_USING_DECL_FOR_TEMPL_FUNCTIONS

that does the same thing (turning private into public)

I see your point.

Admittedly, it'd be nicer if we can come up with a shorter, yet descriptive name.

Would there be much harm in letting BOOST_PRIVATE expand to public if at least one of these deficiencies is present? Jonathan