18 Oct
2005
18 Oct
'05
9:13 a.m.
John Maddock wrote:
One final question: it appears that many (most?) tests ignore the existence of BOOST_TESTED_AT(X). Is there a real reason for doing so, or is it simply that '<= 1300' is less typing than BOOST_TESTED_AT(1300)? Would you like me to extend the script to use BOOST_TESTED_AT(X) consistently?
BOOST_TESTED_AT(1300) and <= 1300 aren't the same thing: the first says: "We know this bug was present in version 1300, and probably *in newer versions as well* until we know otherwise", the second says "only in versions prior to 1300".
Thanks, John. Angus