Hi,
I have come to the conclusion that grabbing global name space with
assert(), assertEqual(), etc, is a Bad Idea. Besides clashing with
the standard C assert() macro, it is just plain rude. ;-)
Other libraries prefix their macros with a standard identifier.
CGAL, for one <www.cgal.org> uses CGAL_assert(). In that tradition,
I wonder if CppUnit should move to CppUnit_assert()?
I should hasten to add that I only suggest to do this gradually.
One plan I came up with is to #define the CppUnit_assert version,
and use
#define assert(cond) CppUnit_assert(cond)
for backwards compatibility. In fact, we could make it a configure
option (--with-toplevel-assert ?). Those who wish to make sure they
are writing "clean" test cases will be able to disable the old macro
names ("./configure --without-toplevel-assert").
Comments?
I see now that there are some other macros with a "CU_" prefix.
If that is the desired prefix for CppUnit, then we'd go with
CU_assert() and CU_assertEqual().
-Steve
--
by Rocket to the Moon,
by Airplane to the Rocket,
by Taxi to the Airport,
by Frontdoor to the Taxi,
by throwing back the blanket and laying down the legs ...
- They Might Be Giants
|
