From: John Torjo (john.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-24 04:00:54
Reece Dunn wrote:
> Larry Evans wrote:
>> On 09/23/2004 02:35 PM, Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
>>> My point wasn't the concrete syntax, this is volatile at this stage
>>> My point was the concept to implement a library, which is 'dual' to
>>> based on the idea, that a grammar describes all possible matchable input
>>> sequences, so why not use this 'grammar' to specify, how to generate
>>> input sequences.
>> Also, couldn't these 'dual' libraries be used to generate test cases
>> for each other?
> Sure. This would be good for performing a feature-by-feature comparison.
> Hooking the machinery into Boost.Test would be a good way of getting the
> results. Naturally, the test cases for each library should pass their
> own tests on supported platforms; the interesting cases will be the test
> cases from the other libraries.
> How do we implement the tests? I suggest that we split the information
>  the data type (type) being formatted, e.g. std::map< std::string,
> std::string > with the details of its contents;
>  for output -- the string (str) such that:
> type val = ...;
> ostringstream ss;
> ss << some_fn( val );
> BOOST_TEST( ss.str() == str );
I think there's a wrap_stringstream() in the sandbox.
You could then do:
BOOST_TEST( (wrap_strinstream() << some_fn(val)) == str);
-- John Torjo -- john_at_[hidden] Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal -- "Win32 GUI Generics" -- generics & GUI do mix, after all -- http://www.torjo.com/win32gui/ -- v1.4 - save_dlg - true binding of your data to UI controls! + easily add validation rules (win32gui/examples/smart_dlg)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk