Could this discussion be moved to another list please? It's
really filling up the list and at this stage it doesn't seem to
belong on the boost list..
I'd like to second the proposal. It sounds like their is lots of interest
and it is an large-scale project, so a separate list is a good idea.
Dar
May I bicycleshedingly suggest
make_directory_hierarchy()
I've been following this discussion, and that is the best suggestion so far.
I think the word "make" or "create" is critical, to show that something
might be created. As someone else said, "demand" suggests an exception or
error code
Following on from that, there seems some overlap between your proposed
asserts and Boost.Test's BOOST_CHECK_() macros. I wonder if it would be
possible to have an assert handler for use in the unit test framework,
and
then I can use SMART_ASSERT() in both main code and in test code and
only have to
Hi,
I tried this out, and it is looking good (gcc 3.2 on linux).
Example:
SMART_ASSERT( (i < j) || (i < 0) || (k == -1) ) (i)(j)(k);
After the expression, you'll specify all the values that were involved in
it,
surrounded by (), like this: '(i)(j)(k)'
Actually you can specify any values in current
Basically, the N actions will be able to be customized (that is, you'll be
able to add your own levels).
What you say, about throwing an exception, also will be possible, since
you'll be able to set a "handler" for each level of assertion.
So, for instance, for assertions with level Debug (default)
A 2-3% timing difference probably isn't reliably repeatable in real code.
My timing tests were interleaved as I swapped in various algorithms and
recompiled and the time differences were consistent. I gave ranges not
averages to give a feel for the "experimental error".
I'm not sure, though, if
Under win32, my assert method uses
if (IsDebuggerPresent())
{
DebugBreak();// ammounts to int 3 on intel
}
Maybe that is the 4th alternative I couldn't think of earlier :-). I also
thought of one more: emailling the system administrator. Useful on servers.
which I find better than the de
BOOST_ASSERT(some_lenghty_function())(???)
2. BOOST_ASSERT( some_lengthy_function() > 10) ( some_lengthy_function());
Indeed, is kind of lengthy, but this is life :-(
The point is that I could provide the v_ macro as well - it would not be too
complicated. What do others think?
I wondered about thi
4. In case an assertion has failed, two actions will occur:
- first, the assertion will be logged
- second, a message will be show to the user, and the user can choose from
multiple actions, like Ignore, Retry, Abort, etc.
These are SEPARATE actions, and are both customizable.
Customization can hap
I'm very interested in having tree container concepts in Boost.
The tree_node_map class provides an implementation to a basic tree node
of variable branching size. The implementation here uses the std::map to
implement the children, but this could equally be a std::list,
std::vector or any sui
I would love boost to provide an exception class/framework/something
with this capability to encourage collection of context information,
which would make problem diagnosis so much easier.
Perhaps I could relate some of my experience and put some ideas up
for discussion?
I'm interested (in fact I n
11 matches
Mail list logo
