Re: [boost] Is there interest in unit testing both passing and failing BOOST_MPL_ASSERTs?

Subject: Re: [boost] Is there interest in unit testing both passing and failing BOOST_MPL_ASSERTs?
From: Gordon Woodhull (gordon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-09-15 02:39:31

On Sep 14, 2011, at 6:05 PM, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:

> Why does it have to be implemented as BOOST_MPL_ASSERT? Can it be done as a
> separate testing tool? We can consider it for Boost.Test.

I agree that stuffing it into BOOST_MPL_ASSERT probably doesn't make sense, because that should retain its current behavior inside of tests. Test codes that don't compile now, shouldn't throw tomorrow.

It also sounds like it's for more than just testing.  So maybe it could go into some other headers in MPL?  I do hope it integrates into Boost.Test, that's what I'd use it for.