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

From: Sohail Somani (s.somani_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-24 14:32:42

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-users-bounces_at_[hidden] 
> [mailto:boost-users-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of 
> Gennadiy Rozental
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 12:15 PM
> To: boost-users_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [BULK] Re: [Boost-users] [BULK] Re: [BULK] Re: 
> [Test] Asserting a failure
> Importance: Low
> 
> 
> > On second thought, why not just modify BOOST_REQUIRE?
> 
> What do you propose to modify?
> 
> One could use BOOST_REQUIRE *instead* of assert() or 
> BOOST_ASSERT. But if 
> they prefer keep using BOOST_ASSERT I could provide a handler.

Well theres no problem using BOOST_ASSERT unless they use it in their
code for different reasons. For example they might use it to log in
production versions of the application...

I guess its not such a big deal if boost test defines its own handler if
enable assert handler is not defined.

I don't even remember where this thread started :)