Subject: Re: [boost] Tests are a mess
From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro.prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-10 12:49:01
Emil Dotchevski wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:43 AM, Gennaro Prota <gennaro.prota_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Out of curiosity --as I really don't intend to waste one more minute on it--
>> is Test.Minimal using all this loathsomeness?
> It seems that it doesn't. The code in question, about 400 lines at
> present, is fully contained in boost/exception/exception.hpp and as of
> 1.36 is included in boost/throw_exception.hpp. The purpose of this
> coupling is to provide hooks to support boost::current_exception and
> the ability for users to augment active exception objects with
> additional (possibly user-specific) info not available at the point of
> the throw.
> If anyone is concerned about this coupling I encourage them to
> participate in the discussion on this very subject going on right now
> (hopefully after familiarizing themselves with the exception library.)
Nah, I'm not concerned about that, really. At least not specifically. I find it
awful that, in a library that --believe me-- I know from the first to the last
line of code, I have no idea of what gets included from the lower levels.
Putting the Cassandra-hat on, I advise you not to start any discussion. It will
be discussed ad infinitum without any useful consequence on code. The #include<>
vs. #include"" issue was beaten to death in the past, for instance. To the point
that it led to core issue 370; committee time wasted on it, and the obvious
advice/conclusion from them. Still, no change in boost code. Another example?
"Optimizing" operator=. With all the problems that Boost has. BTW, you were the
only one who noticed that test reports were not working, so please don't assume
I was attacking you.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk