Re: [boost] [Release 1.34] Supported Compilers - another view

From: Paul A Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-02 12:33:56

| -----Original Message-----
| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Peter Dimov
| Sent: 02 February 2006 15:32
| To: boost_at_[hidden]
| Subject: Re: [boost] [Release 1.34] Supported Compilers - another view
| 
| David Abrahams wrote:
| > "Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> writes:
| >
| >>> Yes.  What do you get from those macros that's very useful beyond
| >>> what BOOST_ASSERT supplies?  I really want to know.  Some people
| >>> I'll be consulting with next week want to know about testing
| >>> procedures for C++, and if there's a reason to recommend
| >>> Boost.Test, I'd like to do that.
| >>
| >> So you choose to use BOOST_ASSERT. That essentially means that you
| >> couldn't have more than one failure.
| >
| > Usually my presumption is that if an assert fails, I can't 
| really have
| > confidence in anything thereafter anyway.
| 
| Fans of assert-based testing may want to check out 
| <boost/detail/lightweight_test.hpp>, which is what I use for testing 
| smart_ptr and bind. :-) 

Fine, but doesn't handle floating point comparisons so easly.

Paul

-- 
Paul A Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
Phone and SMS text [phone], Mobile and SMS text [phone]
mailto: pbristow_at_[hidden]  http://www.hetp.u-net.com/index.html
http://www.hetp.u-net.com/Paul%20A%20Bristow%20info.html