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: Ben Robinson (icaretaker_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-09-15 03:58:54

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Gordon Woodhull <gordon_at_[hidden]>wrote:

>
> 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.
>
> I am coming around and agree as well.  I will leave BOOST_MPL_ASSERT alone,
and provide a new interface for this new functionality.

> 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.
>
> It will integrate nicely not just with Boost.Test, but by any unit testing
framework which can catch exceptions.  I suspect it belongs in Boost.Mpl,
but that decision can be deferred for now.

Thank you,

Ben Robinson, Ph.D.