[jeorgun]

>Unlike C++, 1. Macros from one crate aren't imported into another unless > the user explicitly requests that they be. 2. Macro invocations are > clearly macro invocations. You never have to wonder if something is a > function or a macro.

Given the reference to Boost, the author is almost certainly talking about template metaprogramming, not C macros. TMP is obviously a lot more limited in scope than Rust macros, but it could hardly be called dangerous; I doubt anyone's ever invoked it by accident.

[cma]

Boost has all kinds of preprocessor macro stuff, like a loop construct that works through recursive includes, and the foreach macro (hopefully obsoleted with C++11).

[jeorgun]

True, but since the context of the comment was about how crufty he worries Rust would get once the "Boost crowd" discovers Rust macros, I doubt that it's really the specific topic of "relative merits of language constructs given the name 'macro'" that's under discussion (the word 'macro' doesn't even appear until later in the post). Certainly C macros aren't the main source of cruft in Boost.