Dean Michael Berris wrote:
I've attached the initial explorations (one header, and a test implementation). Comments and insights will be most appreciated. :)
My take would be that whilst the syntax for expressing the specifications is OK (possibly needs a little more thought) I didn't like the idea of exceptions being thrown if the spec is broken. I'd much prefer a interface, that would better integrate with Boost Test for its error reporting, and it would avoid all that duplication in try/catch blocks and make it more readable (the whole point :-) Personally I don't mind getting lots of errors, in the non perfect test suites I end up writing, multiple errors can help 'factor out' the likely bugs I've written. Kevin -- | Kevin Wheatley, Cinesite (Europe) Ltd | Nobody thinks this | | Senior Technology | My employer for certain | | And Network Systems Architect | Not even myself |