Re: [boost] [test] BOOST_CHECK_NOT_EQUAL wanted

From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-30 16:37:29

Kevin Sopp <baraclese <at> googlemail.com> writes:

> 
> On 8/30/07, Gennadiy Rozental <rogeeff <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> > There are way to many predicates out there to introduce direct library 
support
> > for each one. The recomendation is to use generic predicate support 
instead.
> 
> There are only 5 more comparison operators defined by the language:
> less, less equal, greater, greater equal and not equal. Maybe it is
> possible to make it easier to add these, I see there is some
> complexity involved by looking at the code.

There is not much complexity, but it's tedios from proper error reporting 
prospective.
 
> It makes a whole lot of sense to add the complementary
> BOOST_CHECK_NOT_EQUAL - even if it's just for symmetric reasons.

What's wrong with solutions I proposed?

You can always do this in your code: 

#define CHECK_NOT_EQ( a, b ) BOOST_CHECK_PREDICATE( _1 != _2, (a)(b))

Gennadiy