Date: 2001-02-09 16:34:50
--- In boost_at_y..., Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_a...> wrote:
> At 07:21 PM 2/9/2001 +0000, williamkempf_at_h... wrote:
> >Also, since catch_exceptions takes a function object as the first
> >parameter the use of a function pointer and two global variables
> >doesn't feel right. I'd suggest using a true function object
> >constructed with the argc and argv parameters instead. I know
> >this is a personal preference kind of thing, but usage of global
> >variables for this sort of thing seems very questionable.
> They actually aren't globals; they are in the unnamed namespace and
> safe to use AFAIK.
Even though they are in the unnamed namespace, they are still
globals. Just globals of a different stripe. Since they are in the
unnamed namespace they are safe (or is that just safer?) from ODR
violations, but many of the dangers of "regular" global variables
still exist. In this case I can't see any usage that would actually
create a problem, but it still just leaves me feeling like this
should be addressed. You know, one of those general "bad feelings
with no concrete reason" circumstances that comes from "following
> But none-the-less, I had exactly the same thought about
> using a true function object. My reasoning went something
like "why bother
> since it doesn't actually buy you anything." But I may reconsider
> of your comment.
If you decide not to you might still consider documenting any reason
(s) that might exist, just so others don't bring this up again in the
> >In catch_exceptions.hpp I wonder about the usefulness of capturing
> >every exception type in the std::exception heirarchy. If it's
> >beneficial to have the exact type reported then it seems that
> >needs to be a way to specify types that will be caught. Otherwise
> >libraries that extend this heirarchy with their own exception
> >will be reported as generic exception types while the standard
> >exception types that extend the heirarchy are more precise. I'd
> >in favor of just catching std::exception types instead.
> I don't agree. I think we should be as explicit as possible.
> as soon as I get a chance, my plan was to further extend the types
> to cover platforms like Windows where it is possible to turn OS
> into C++ exceptions with some platform dependent code.
My concern was that it wasn't really explicit enough. The optimal
solution would be to somehow allow the user to specify the exception
types that can be caught, but that's beyond the scope at this point I
think. However, since it was pointed out that not all
implimentations give reasonable what() responses, I guess what you've
done is the best solution.
> >In test_tools.hpp I'd suggest adding two more macros:
> >BOOST_TEST_FAILURE and BOOST_TEST_CRITICAL_FAILURE. These would
> >string descriptions instead of boolean test results for reporting
> >errors that are hard or even impossible to capture in boolean
> >conditions. For example, if we expect a call to return an
> >when can write test code like this:
> > foo();
> > BOOST_TEST_FAILURE("foo() did not generate a bar() exception");
> >catch (bar&)
> >// ok
> I like it! I also like your use of "CRITICAL" to identify a non-
> error. (Assuming that is what you meant!).
Yes, that's what I meant.
> I'm a bit nervous over the name
> BOOST_TEST_ASSERT because I'm afraid readers will think it is just
> half-baked wrapper.
> Maybe the names should be:
Sounds good to me. Though I like BOOST_TEST_CRITICAL_FAILURE over
BOOST_TEST_FAILURE_CRITICAL, when applied to ..VERIFY.. it only makes
sense to put the ..CRITICAL.. at the end, so I'd go with the latter
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk