Re: [jamboost] Re: Bjam core tests

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-14 08:56:46

David Abrahams wrote:

> > (There's some test in class.jam, actually, but it's not executed by
> > default
>
> "not executed by default?"
>
> You must've missed this:
>
> local rule expect_derived2 ( [derived2] x ) { }
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>
> expect_derived2 $(d) ;
> expect_derived2 $(e) ;

Oh... I did miss that in fact. Apologies.

> > and is too high-level to understand how new feature works).
>
> What's high-level about this?

The high level part is that is tests not typechecking per-se, but 
typechecking as applied to classes. One must find the place where 
typechecking rule is imported into .typecheck module and then the typechecking 
rule, to understand how it works.

> Actually, your test is not such a good demonstration because type
> checking code should generally not ECHO, but should return a message
> as my example did.

Oh.. I did not understand that part. BTW, I don't understand the "MATCH" use 
in typecheck as well: why there '\\[(.*)\\]' in BACKTRACE? 

- Volodya