On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:38:32 -0400, spir <denis.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/14/2011 06:35 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Am 14.04.2011 17:47, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:28:39 -0400, spir<denis.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/14/2011 04:03 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Sometimes, I worry that my unit tests or asserts aren't running.
Every once in
a while, I have to change one to fail to make sure that code is
compiling (this
is especially true when I'm doing version statements or templates).
It would
be nice if there was a -assertprint mode which showed asserts
actually running
(only for the module compiled with that switch, of course).
Man, I'm very pleased to read someone else advocating for optionally
verbose assertions.
This could use 2 arguments instead of a predicate:
assert(expressions, value);
Example use:
[snip]
I don't think we can change assert syntax now. What I was looking was
for something more like:
assert(x == y);
prints out
"asserting x == y: true"
for asserts that pass when you have the 'verbose assert' flag turned
on. This should be easy to do in the compiler by just translating
assert(expr);
to something like:
auto result = evaluateAssert(expr);
print("asserting expr: ", result ? "true" : "false");
assert(result);
The problem is how do /you/ get expr's original expression? In other
words, is there a way to do it without compiler magic?
(I think even passing expr as string and using string mixins would not
do it, because the string must be constant.)
compiler magic :) I.e. this proposal requires the compiler to change the
way assert is implemented.
-Steve
