On 4 February 2011 11:11, Thorsten Ottosen <thorsten.ottosen@dezide.com>wrote:
Dear Boost.Test Maintainer,
I think it would be useful to add the following macros to Boost.Test:
#define BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL_RANGE( Rng1, Rng2 ) \ BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL_COLLECTIONS( boost::begin(Rng1), boost::end(Rng1), \ boost::begin(Rng2), boost::end(Rng2) )
And it would also be nice to have BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE_RANGE/COLLECTION.
Wouldn't it scale better and easier if Test macros that play along with Boost.Test infrastructure be hosted in the specific library, i.e boost/range/test.hpp instead of having it in the Test library itself? There's virtually no end to the amount of useful TEST_MACROS, and I think that the Boost.Test maintainer should not need to judge each and everyone of them to see they are 'useful enough' to be part of the core library. If author X finds a useful macro for his library Y and wants to document it for his end-users, let him/her do so in his own library. Some users will find that TEST_RANGE macros are fundamental to their work, others floating point tests, integer tests, string tests etc.. Just as serialization support isn't added to boost/serialization/ for each serializable data type in boost, neither should test functions/macros IMHO. My cents, - Christian