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
> > 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.
Ben Robinson, Ph.D.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk