-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Gennadiy Rozental Sent: 30 August 2007 21:37 To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost][test] BOOST_CHECK_NOT_EQUAL wanted
Kevin Sopp <baraclese <at> googlemail.com> writes:
On 8/30/07, Gennadiy Rozental <rogeeff <at> gmail.com> wrote:
There are way to many predicates out there to introduce
for each one. The recomendation is to use generic
direct library support predicate support instead.
There are only 5 more comparison operators defined by the language: less, less equal, greater, greater equal and not equal. Maybe it is possible to make it easier to add these, I see there is some complexity involved by looking at the code.
There is not much complexity, but it's tedios from proper error reporting prospective.
It makes a whole lot of sense to add the complementary BOOST_CHECK_NOT_EQUAL - even if it's just for symmetric reasons.
What's wrong with solutions I proposed?
You can always do this in your code:
#define CHECK_NOT_EQ( a, b ) BOOST_CHECK_PREDICATE( _1 != _2, (a)(b))
Gennadiy is quite right to say that knowing the values that fail is *very* useful. But I strongly disagree that there are 'way too many' possible. Surely these can *all* be provided like #define BOOST_CHECK_NOT_EQ( a, b ) BOOST_CHECK_PREDICATE( _1 != _2, (a)(b)) Together with any necessary #includes to make it work. And save work for the users who are trying to concentrate on their testing, not re-writing macros. Paul --- Paul A Bristow Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB +44 1539561830 & SMS, Mobile +44 7714 330204 & SMS pbristow@hetp.u-net.com