Re: [Boost-testing] broken reporting of failure expectations

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-09 07:55:54

Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> writes:

>>
>>> and I don't see how doing so would help anything or anybody.
>>
>> Doing what?  When I said "should just be changed" I meant that anyone
>> who might be tempted to write a "*" toolset markup should instead
>> change the test expectation in his Jamfile.
>
> That I don't understand. I thought we agreed that for the time being
> they should just spell out the failing toolset names (as in all other
> cases).

Sorry, I'm trying hard to be clear, but obviously I'm leaving some
ambiguity in.

I meant "anyone who might be tempted to use a '*' toolset markup and
who has a full understanding of the current semantics."  So, I used
'*', but I am not in that category because I thought the '*' would do
something other than what it currently does, which is why I should
just spell out the toolset names.

> OK, I've double-checked this with Misha and he says that he indeed did
> understand your use case back then. It fell through the cracks exactly
> because of his reservations (expressed in that thread) about providing
> this functionality under the star syntax.

I don't really care what syntax we use, but I'm beginning to wish very
strongly for the functionality under *some* syntax, because of the
fact that when I put in the toolsets explicitly:

 a. The XML file no longer really reflected my intention

 b. I had a really hard time being sure that what I was doing made
    sense.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com