Re: [boost] Boost.Test updates in trunk: need for (mini) review?

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Test updates in trunk: need for (mini) review?
From: Gennadiy Rozenal (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-10-20 15:42:20

Steven Watanabe <watanabesj <at> gmail.com> writes:

> > I. New testing tool BOOST_CHECKA
> > 
> > This tool is based on excellent idea from Kevlin Henney. I chose the name 
> > CHECKA for this tool due to the lack of better name, but I am open to 
> > suggestions.
> 
> BOOST_CHECK_EXPR?  Ideally I'd like this
> to be called BOOST_CHECK, but I don't
> think that can be made perfectly backwards
> compatible.

Yep. There are few cases where BOOST_CHECKA can't handle what BOOST_CHECK can. I 
really would prefer name as short as possible. This is intended to be a primary 
testing tool from now on. And I am kind of stuck with triplets of 
WARN/CHECK/REQUIRE, so any name has to fit into this schema. I've considered:

BOOST_UCHECK (U for universal)
BOOST_CHECK_EX (EX for extended)
BOOST_CHECK_ASSERTION too long?
BOOST_CASSERT/BOOST_WASSERT/BOOST_RASSERT (W/C/R for warn check and require 
levels)

Gennadiy