Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [unit_test_framework] checkpoints for BOOST_CHECK*?
From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-09-26 19:35:31
rozelak_at_[hidden] wrote:
> Bu may I have a question as well? Why do you refuse the extension
> of BOOST_WARN|CHECK|REQUIRE_* macro by user-defined massage? It
> seems to me as a natural extension of the macros (it is already
> possible with BOOST_CHECK_MESSAGE), while it by no means affects
> the existing interface. Is it so difficult to implement it? Is
> there a general resistance against interface extension?
There are tons of these. Presenting yet another set of 30 or so macros
with very limited advantage does not seem warranted to me.
Gennadiy