Beman Dawes wrote:
"Christopher Kohlhoff" <chris@kohlhoff.com> wrote in message news:20051223091739.62019.qmail@web32605.mail.mud.yahoo.com...
How do you expect to write tests for your library that cover *all* the various methods supported in one platform?
By doing what Caleb Epstein suggested and having a different macro passed when building each set of tests.
I note that this is how Boost.Threads, for example, differentiates between the native Windows threads and pthreads variants.
It is also how Boost.Filesystem chooses between Windows and POSIX variants on platforms (Cygwin) that support both.
And I dislike that approach in general, I consider it a kludge. Because it eventually leads to ODR and dynamic linking problems. I also consider it a design dodge to only provide users one abstraction implementation for one category of OS services, instead of providing one abstraction that uses any implementation of that one category of OS services. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - Grafik/jabber.org