Re: [Boost-users] [BULK] Re: [BULK] Re: [Test] Asserting a failure

From: Sohail Somani (s.somani_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-24 13:59:30

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-users-bounces_at_[hidden] 
> [mailto:boost-users-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of 
> Gennadiy Rozental
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 11:50 AM
> To: boost-users_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [BULK] Re: [Boost-users] [BULK] Re: [Test] Asserting 
> a failure
> Importance: Low
> 
> 
> 
> > Try replacing your asserts with BOOST_ASSERT which can be a passive 
> > assert depending on how you use it.
> >
> > http://www.boost.org/libs/utility/assert.html
> 
> Hmm. That's an idea. I could probably do this within 
> Boost.Test so users 
> wouldn't need to bother:
> 
> test_tools.hpp:
> 
> #if !defined(BOOST_TEST_NO_ASSERT_HANDLER)
> 
> namespace boost {
> inline void assertion_failed(char const * expr, char const * 
> function, char 
> const * file, long line)
> {
>     ...
> }
> }
> 
> #endif
> 
> This way by default I will always supply definition for the 
> function, unless 
> user is willing to suply different one.

I imagine that would work unless they already use boost assert and
define it in their own code for logging purposes. Perhaps something
along the lines of boost assert for boost test?