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: 2011-09-16 03:31:08

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Ábel Sinkovics <abel_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The suggestions I've made are all based on a library I have already
> implemented: this is the metatest (sub)-library of mpllibs I mentioned
> on another thread (Template metaprogramming libraries). You can download
> and try it out.
>
> If you have a chance to play with it, I'm happy to receive feedback and
> suggestions.
>
> Regards,
>  Abel
>
> Abel, it was only after looking through your library that I conceived of
this idea I am proposing, and I cited this in my original post, since I
think you have done a great work there.  I need to spend more time and look
at it closer when I get the chance.

I did want to keep the interface to this capability a single macro
invocation, without any setup except a #define, since that is as close to
what developers are already used to with BOOST_MPL_ASSERT_*.  Also, it was
my assumption that developers are also accustomed to writing test cases for
when exceptions are thrown/not thrown (at least I am).

I need to put something together sooner rather than later, so there is
something concrete to discuss, and compare/contrast with your solution.
 Perhaps the best solution lied somewhere in between.  I look forward to
your additional feedback, and will provide my own on your implementation as
soon as I can.

Regards,

Ben Robinson, Ph.D.

>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>