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: 2011-09-17 12:14:05

On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. <
jeffrey.hellrung_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
> It would seem to me that, typically, removing a static_assert that would
> fail for a particular instantiation will just push the compiler errors
> further on down the code after the (removed) static_assert; i.e., the
> static_assert is only meant to catch compiler errors early and in a
> readable
> way.
>
> Do you have a particular use case in mind?
>
> It may be necessary to add primary templates to an implementation, with a
failing static assert inside, to allow everything to compile with incorrect
types, and produce the error at runtime.

At this point, I have successfully determined there is indeed interest, and
I will be submitting an implementation with unit tests shortly.

Regards,

Ben Robinson, Ph.D.

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