From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-16 07:15:17
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> > Really I suppose that there are three kinds of failures:
> > 1) Stuff that gets skipped cos it doesn't compile.
Each such test should go in a separate .cpp file, so that it will show
up when such a test gets fixed.
> > 2) Stuff for which there is no impliementtion on conforming
> > (is_POD say), this is epected to fail everywhere (for now)
> > 3) Stuff that should work, but doesn't, if it's been checked as a
> > bug, and there is no known workaround, then lable it as an expected
For these we should have a way of saying in the documentation which
cases will and won't work with a particular compiler.
> > I guess I really need to separate these three cases and report the
> > of each - expected failures would apply to (3) only.
That makes sense to me.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk