Hi Kevin! On 9/15/06, Kevin Wheatley <hxpro@cinesite.co.uk> wrote:
Dean Michael Berris wrote:
I've attached the initial explorations (one header, and a test implementation). Comments and insights will be most appreciated. :)
My take would be that whilst the syntax for expressing the specifications is OK (possibly needs a little more thought) I didn't like the idea of exceptions being thrown if the spec is broken.
Yeah... Now that I'm reading it again, I'm beginning to think about removing the exceptions part. It seemed like a good idea at first, but apparently the client code (the one in main(...) ) doesn't look too good with all the try {} catch (...) {} blocks.
I'd much prefer a interface, that would better integrate with Boost Test for its error reporting, and it would avoid all that duplication in try/catch blocks and make it more readable (the whole point :-)
This was the original idea (integrating with Boost.Test), but I ran into problems with Boost 1.33.1 and MSVC 8. So I tried to come up with something that's not yet tied with anything Boost related, and the output was what was attached to my other message. :-)
Personally I don't mind getting lots of errors, in the non perfect test suites I end up writing, multiple errors can help 'factor out' the likely bugs I've written.
Indeed. I understand completely. :-) -- Dean Michael C. Berris C++ Software Architect Orange and Bronze Software Labs, Ltd. Co. web: http://software.orangeandbronze.com/ email: dean@orangeandbronze.com mobile: +63 928 7291459 phone: +63 2 8943415 other: +1 408 4049532 blogs: http://mikhailberis.blogspot.com http://3w-agility.blogspot.com http://cplusplus-soup.blogspot.com