| -----Original Message----- | From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org | [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Peter Dimov | Sent: 02 February 2006 15:32 | To: boost@lists.boost.org | Subject: Re: [boost] [Release 1.34] Supported Compilers - another view | | David Abrahams wrote: | > "Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental@thomson.com> writes: | > | >>> Yes. What do you get from those macros that's very useful beyond | >>> what BOOST_ASSERT supplies? I really want to know. Some people | >>> I'll be consulting with next week want to know about testing | >>> procedures for C++, and if there's a reason to recommend | >>> Boost.Test, I'd like to do that. | >> | >> So you choose to use BOOST_ASSERT. That essentially means that you | >> couldn't have more than one failure. | > | > Usually my presumption is that if an assert fails, I can't | really have | > confidence in anything thereafter anyway. | | Fans of assert-based testing may want to check out | <boost/detail/lightweight_test.hpp>, which is what I use for testing | smart_ptr and bind. :-) Fine, but doesn't handle floating point comparisons so easly. Paul -- Paul A Bristow Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB Phone and SMS text +44 1539 561830, Mobile and SMS text +44 7714 330204 mailto: pbristow@hetp.u-net.com http://www.hetp.u-net.com/index.html http://www.hetp.u-net.com/Paul%20A%20Bristow%20info.html