Re: [boost] Review: Boost Test Library

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-02-28 15:10:07

At 01:04 PM 2/28/2001 -0600, Ed Brey wrote:

 >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.

The point of having _TEST as the second word was to make it clear what 
Boost library they were associated with.  But I go back and forth on the 
names.  How about these:

     BOOST_TEST(exp)
     BOOST_CRITICAL_TEST(exp)
     BOOST_ERROR(msg)
     BOOST_CRITICAL_ERROR(msg)

They seem clear enough to me, but I'm so close I can't see the forest for 
the trees.  Comments?

--Beman