Boost logo

Boost :

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-16 02:28:26

"Jody Hagins" <jody-boost-011304_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:03:04 -0500
> "Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Latest version contains two macros: one for percentage based
>> comparison, one for fraction based one.
> Great! I'll take a look when it is released.
>> > The interface requiring percentages is bad enough. The explanations
>> > in the documentation are even worse.
>> Do you have any particular complains?
> Nothing particular, other than I could not understand how to use it. I
> even tried several examples myself. I would call it with hard coded
> values that I thought should fail, and it would pass. I had similar

Could you please provide an example?

> problems on the other side where tests I though should pass would fail.

And here also

> So, I just stopped trying to use it.
>> > Just to remind everyone, I'm a strong supporter of Boost.Test, and
>> > have stated so many times. Unfortunately, that macro causes more
>> > problems than it solves.
>> Could you please clarify.
> For me, it is too cumbersome, and the definition of "close" is obscure.

How is it cumbersome? From my understanding cumbersome is a synonym to
inconvinient. What particularly inconvinient you see in the

> I had several tests that used the macro, and the tests started failing
> on valid values. Changing how the macro was invoked caused previously
> passing tests to fail. Obviously, I was missing something badly.

Yet again. Please provide an examples.

> I ended up reverting back to a poor, but at least well understood,
> principle of using an epsilon value as it was appropriate for those
> situations.
>> Docs says: " Last third parameter defines the tolerance for the
>> comparison in percentage units". This combined with example and error
>> message produced:
>> test.cpp(4) : error in test_main: difference between v1{1.23456e-10}
>> and v2{1.23457e-10} exeeds 1e-04%
>> should give you some level of understanding. Try explaining now
>> fraction based comparisons to anyone not an expert.
>> But if you are willing to provide an updated version for the pages
>> related to the FP comparison you are very welcome
> I would be very willing, however I simply do not understand the current
> interface so I doubt I could explaint it to anyone. I know the docs are
> there. However, after reading them, I'm still in the dark. I can't
> prove the inadequacy, only state that I am unable to properly use the
> interface based on the docs and examples.

At some point Paul promised shed some light in a form of FPV comparison
tools docs. It never happened though. I will have to get to this once I am
done with the rest. Though I still not sure why this tool causing that much


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at