RE: [Cppunit-devel] assert* macros, revisited

[Townsend, G. <gto...@sh...>]

> On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 03:28PM -0700, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> 
> Doesn't matter to me, either.  However, it would be nice if all macros
> defined in CppUnit share the same prefix.  As far as I can see, the
> only other macros in CppUnit are prefixed by CU_ (CU_TEST_SUITE and
> friends).

Which really argues for assert() being changed to CU_ASSERT(). Since it's a
macro, shouldn't it be all upper case. The compiler vendors get away with it
because of the C library having two versions of many functions, but it's
certainly standard practice for others to capitalize macros. (Microsoft has
already stolen ASSERT() for MFC, so that is not a good choice either;
besides the fact that a library like CppUnit should use its own prefix for
anything in the global name space)


> Ah.  Sorry; I have been advocating a new macro "assertEqual", 
> 
> #define CU_assertEqual(expected,actual)\
>   (CppUnit::TestAssert::assertEquals ((expected),\
>     (actual),__LINE__,__FILE__))
> 
> and this is what I was referring to, not the member function 
> of TestAssert.
> (Also, I'm suggesting that TestAssert::assertEquals() be a 
> templated function).

I like that. (though the all caps for macros question comes up again).
Making TestAssert::assertEquals() be a templated function sounds
interesting. Gets around all the variations of that function. On the other
hand I don't have anything useful to contribute to the discussion of
compiler support, so other than "that sounds good (in theory)" I'll just
watch to see how it works out.

Guy