Re: [boost] Review: Boost Test Library

From: Ed Brey (brey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-02-28 14:04:58

From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
> Agreed.  I've cut the macro names down to:
>
>    BOOST_TEST(exp)
>    BOOST_TEST_CRITICAL(exp)
>    BOOST_TEST_ERROR(msg)
>    BOOST_TEST_ERROR_CRITICAL(msg)
>
> BOOST_TEST seems to me to be as meaningful as BOOST_TEST_VERIFY, yet is a
> bit shorter, which is important for this most heavily used macro.
>
> BOOST_TEST_ERROR seemed to relate better to the error reported than
> BOOST_TEST_FAILURE.
>
> If anyone has a serious objection to these names, please let me know
before
> the release.

If I disengage the previous knowledge section of my brain (to the extent
possible), the new names seem a bit confusing to me.  The difference between
BOOST_TEST_CRITICAL and BOOST_TEST_ERROR_CRITICAL doesn't seem intuitively
obvious.  I think the crux of the problem is that the last two macros don't
test anything; they just report.  So perhaps BOOST_REPORT_ERROR and
BOOST_REPORT_CRITICAL_ERROR or, for more brevity, just BOOST_ERROR and
BOOST_CRITICAL_ERROR might be good.  The latter choice "feels" in harmony
with the #error preprocessor directive, which is a good thing.

In any case, I would recommend using CRITICAL_ERROR rather than
ERROR_CRITICAL, as having the adjective first sounds more natural in
English.