From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-30 22:50:23
"Frank Birbacher" <bloodymir.crap_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:fb7kpn$or8$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
> Hi!
>
> Gennadiy Rozental schrieb:
>> What's wrong with solutions I proposed?
>>
>> You can always do this in your code:
>>
>> #define CHECK_NOT_EQ( a, b ) BOOST_CHECK_PREDICATE( _1 != _2, (a)(b))
>
> Yes, you can always do this. But libraries are to make things convenient.
>
> For my part I don't see any point in the new macro. I propse the use of
> BOOST_CHECK/BOOST_CHECK_MESSAGE:
>
> BOOST_CHECK( a != b );
>
> The standard "assert" doesn't provide more either. And there would be an
> exponential number of combinations of warning level, optional message,
> and various kinds of operators. Unless these can be automatically
> generated I would resort to simple things as the above.
Actually my solution is preferable, since you will be able to see matched
values (though on the other hand failed x != 5 condition doesn't need
additional clarifications, but this is not the case for other checks we are
discussing)
Gennadiy