"Daryle Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > While writing some other code, I checked out how some of the macros in > Boost.Test are implemented. The BOOST_CHECK_THROW and > BOOST_CHECK_EXCEPTION macros flag when an intentional exception was > missed and when the expected exception type was caught. But what about > when an exception of the _wrong_ type is thrown. Shouldn't there be a > catch(...) that notes that the wrong type was caught and re-throws the > error?
Any operation may throw an unexpected exception. To manage this Boost.Test runs test cases under control of the Execution Monitor. Any exception thrown from inside a test case gets caught and reported. So I believe current semantic of above tools is correct. Gennadiy. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
