From: John Torjo (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-10 14:50:15
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darren Cook" <darren_at_[hidden]>
To: "Boost mailing list" <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 2:54 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] smart assert (was: ENFORCE/ better assertion technique)
> > Basically, the N actions will be able to be customized (that is, you'll
> > able to add your own levels).
> > What you say, about throwing an exception, also will be possible, since
> > you'll be able to set a "handler" for each level of assertion.
> > So, for instance, for assertions with level Debug (default), you can set
> > handler that will throw. Just like that! At run-time! (you can leave the
> > default handler for assertions, that will prompt the user, etc. , or
> > set your own, which can throw an exception).
> This sounds good. So if I want to do a test that a function does actually
> assert with bad data I can switch to exceptions, do a BOOST_CHECK_THROW()
> test, then switch back to normal assertion behaviour.
> Following on from that, there seems some overlap between your proposed
> asserts and Boost.Test's BOOST_CHECK_() macros. I wonder if it would be
> possible to have an assert handler for use in the unit test framework, and
> then I can use SMART_ASSERT() in both main code and in test code and only
> have to learn one syntax.
I'll have to think about that...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk