From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-22 21:20:14
"Dave Steffen" <dgsteffen_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > What particularly you are missing/don't like in current interface
> > presented by Boost.Test (other than FP comparison tools interface)?
> Well, the naming and behavior of the floating point comparisons, for
> one thing.
Could you be please more strait to the point. I need some specifics instead
of general "I don't like behavior"
What behavior? Which comparisons? How would you like it to behave? Specific
> Consider, though, the following point. Much of what we do around here
> is linear algebra, so the question arises: how do you relative
> differences between vectors? The answer is, of course, that there's
> more than one way to do it. I wanted a system that made it easy (or
> at least possible) to plug other mathematical things into
> BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE: vectors, matrices, track states, Kalman filters...
IMO BOOST_CHECK_PREDICATE + class predicate result should satisfy your
needs. Again: general answer on general comment.
> Another thing I'd like to avoid dealing with is the API change to
> BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL_COLLECTIONS (from three to four parameters). I
> understand that Boost Test is still evolving, and that API's will
> change, and that's fine; I just wanted an extra layer that might
> possibly make the next such transition easier.
This is one of the few examples where original interface was deemed unsafe
and I moved to new safer one. It shouldn't happened on a regular basis
> Since there are a few other assertion macros that we find handy, I
> And BTW, I haven't looked at all at 1.34 RC anything. I know there's
> new functionality there, and will look at it this week.
Did you have a change to review it?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk