Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
"Johan Nilsson" <r.johan.nilsson@gmail.com> wrote in message news:erc3he$lfo$1@sea.gmane.org...
How about a compromise:
BOOST_CHECK_PERCENT_DIFF BOOST_CHECK_RELATIVE_DIFF BOOST_CHECK_EPSILON_DIFF BOOST_CHECK_ABSOLUTE_DIFF (do we need this one?)
I "need" it - as an example, I'm using absolute diffs to verify that the outcome of conversions back and forth between different coordinate systems are correct within a certain amount of (length) units. As I've mentioned in another place in this thread, I'd personally prefer to have the type of difference check encoded at the end of the macro names. A matter of personal taste, I guess.
There is another alternatve:
BOOST_CHECK_DIFF( a,b, PERCENT( t ) ) BOOST_CHECK_DIFF( a,b, RELATIVE( t ) ) BOOST_CHECK_DIFF( a,b, EPSILON( t ) ) BOOST_CHECK_DIFF( a,b, ABSOLUTE( t ) )
That would also be ok with me, and equally clear. Made me worry about possible macro name clashes until I read the below ...
We could either use macro based solution
BOOST_CHECK_DIFF( a,b, c ) \ BOOST_CHECK_DIFF_IMPL( a,b, BOOST_CHECK_DIFF_TOL_ # c )
_TOOL_ ?
or function overloading based. But it could be less convinient even if a bit safer (from macro redefinitions)
Safety is important, but I'd still go for convenience in this case. One of the main reasons I use Boost.Test is for convenience (auto-registration etc).
I assume that the WARN/REQUIRE variants would be added as well?
Yes
Great. / Johan