"Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental@thomson.com> writes:
Does above 'sure' means you are going to take care about it, or you want me to do it?
It means, "yes, the header should be split." Personally I don't care very much whether it gets done or not.
If you don't care why should I.
I didn't say you should do it.
No such directory. And there's no test for numeric_cast in libs/conversion/test.
copy in libs/numeric/convertion/test)
So whatever you're referring to can't be a copy of something that doesn't exist.
could use BOOST_TEST_THROW in stead of handcrafted checks.
I don't know what source file you're referring to, so I can't really evaluate your statement.
What a deep analysis! Looks like we could write an article on my spelling errors correction.
Gennadiy, I spent ten minutes trying -- and failing -- to figure out what you're talking about. It may just look like spelling errors to you because you know what you meant, but to me, it was just a huge waste of time. Your sarcasm is unwarranted. I doubt I will invest the same amount of effort on you the next time if this is how it's rewarded.
Is there some advantage to using BOOST_TEST_THROW? For a long time I was avoiding using the test library because of instability we had around release time, and because other mechanisms seemed to be easier and more straightforward.
It's your choice of course. Currently test have series of check like this:
bool caught_exception = false; try { c = numeric_cast<signed char>( large_value ); } catch (bad_numeric_cast) { cout<<"caught bad_numeric_cast #1\n"; caught_exception = true; } BOOST_CHECK ( caught_exception );
Instead it could be written:
BOOST_CHECK_THROW( numeric_cast<signed char>( large_value ), bad_numeric_cast );
That's all I dared to propose.
That looks like an improvement. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com