From: Kevin Wheatley (hxpro_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-15 04:47:17
Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> I've attached the initial explorations (one header, and a test
> implementation). Comments and insights will be most appreciated. :)
My take would be that whilst the syntax for expressing the
specifications is OK (possibly needs a little more thought) I didn't
like the idea of exceptions being thrown if the spec is broken.
I'd much prefer a interface, that would better integrate with Boost
Test for its error reporting, and it would avoid all that duplication
in try/catch blocks and make it more readable (the whole point :-)
Personally I don't mind getting lots of errors, in the non perfect
test suites I end up writing, multiple errors can help 'factor out'
the likely bugs I've written.
-- | Kevin Wheatley, Cinesite (Europe) Ltd | Nobody thinks this | | Senior Technology | My employer for certain | | And Network Systems Architect | Not even myself |
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk