NFD » ndn-cxx

I would preferred BOOST_*, because they are upper case and more eye-catching.

Are there different opinions?

I would use the standard version. You can always #define NDN_ASSERT assert if you like uppercase, but I don't really understand nor agree with the "eye-catching" rationale...

I would agree with Davide. Given we should "eventually" replace all the BOOST stuff with stl, we should introduce as few BOOST things as possible. Defining an NDN_ASSERT macro seems a good solution.

Don't introduce new identifiers.

If BOOST_* is undesirable, we should prefer plain assert and static_assert.

I don't mind using static_assert instead of BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT, but would prefer using boost's BOOST_ASSERT and BOOST_ASSERT_MSG as they provide more functionality than standard assert (http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_55_0/libs/utility/assert.html)