Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Unittest capability for meta-programs feedback request
From: Ben Robinson (icaretaker_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-09-29 02:28:55

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> >>
> >> We already have an approach; it requires integration with the test
> >> system. Yes, it's imperfect, but it does do the kind of testing needed
> >> to see that MyComponent<int> is prohibited.
> >>
> I wouldn't advocate the technique for testing that a static assertion
> fails; what you're proposing in this thread is much better suited to
> that use case.
Excellent! Now I suppose I need to justify my implementation choices, as
well as demonstrate how the technique can be used through better examples.
 I hope that once this technique is digested, the community will discover
surprising new ways to make use of it.

However, if you need to prove that something fails compilation (an
> altogether different problem), you can do it by having the testing
> system invert the result of running the compiler. For robustness you
> should also make sure that everything compiles successfully if you
> disable the specific trigger for the failure, and maybe check the error
> messages.

Agreed, I have not added this capability to my current GNU Make build
system, but I certainly will. Thanks to everybody who explained this
approach to proving compilation failures.

Thank you,

Ben Robinson, Ph.D.

> Dave Abrahams
> BoostPro Computing
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at