[boost] Library included tests( was [typeof] gcc and typeof in function return types)

From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-07 04:33:17

"Arkadiy Vertleyb" <vertleyb_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:ds90da$fgt$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
> Hi Andy,
>
> "Andy Little" <andy_at_[hidden]> wrote
>
>> I have been testing out replacing my return type deduction scheme in
> signatures
>> with typeof. see code and errors at the  end.
>
> I've seen this kind of problem before.  It exists in gcc in both native and
> compliant mode, and can be workarounded by factoring out typeof invocation
> into a separate template, something like this:

[...]

OK . The workaround is sort of what I had already as the return type deduction
scheme.

BTW a general question.  Should the non-workaround be being tested? I'm not sure
what test policy should be on something you know is going to fail. Do you add
this to tests bundled with the library?. Or do you just put in the workaround
IOW effectively not testing this?

For example if a user finds a test failing then they will assume the library is
unusable right?
OTOH the test is provided documenting the workaround.

Is there a policy on this?

regards
Andy Little