"Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental@thomson.com> wrote in message news:d72du0$fbr$1@sea.gmane.org... | | "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto@cs.auc.dk> wrote in message | news:d72cp4$bhu$1@sea.gmane.org... | > "Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental@thomson.com> wrote in message | > news:d726p5$k5p$1@sea.gmane.org... | > | using namespace std; | > | using namespace boost; | > | | > | > BOOST_CHECK_NOT_EQUAL(x,y) | > | | > | BOOST_CHECK_PREDICATE( not_equal_to<T>(), (x)(y) ); | > | | > | > BOOST_CHECK_NOT_CLOSE(x,y) | > | | > | BOOST_CHECK_PREDICATE( not( test_tools::check_is_close ), | > | (x)(y)(tolerance) ); | > | > ok, but I still think it is too much of typing to do what I need in a | > straightforward manner. | | There are a lot of predicates: > , < >=, != etc. Add conjunctions and you | will have exponential amount. and don't add them, and you have a linear amount. | I couldn't incorporate all possible predicates | into library. Instead I provide generic tool. If you need this frequently in | some test module you could define one yourself. then why did you provide CHECK_EQUAL ? Afterall, it can be done with the generic tool. surely it wouldn't be too hard to write first hand tools for ==, !=, <, <= to give users the most pleasent experience ? (> and >= is not needed as we can reverse the arguments) -Thorsten