Re: [Cppunit-devel] ch-ch-ch-changes ...

[Steve M. R. <ste...@vi...>]

On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 12:03:15PM -0700, Townsend, Guy wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steve M. Robbins
> > Since there are already CU_-prefixed macros, I'm planning
> > to use CU_assert unless I hear a better suggestion.  
> 
> I already mentioned it, but just to reiterate it here, I ask the question
> whether macros shoudn't be all caps? 

It is true that macros have a long history of being all caps.

I hereby amend my post of yesterday to read "I'm planning to convert
to CU_ASSERT unless I hear a better suggestion".

 
> > I'm also planning to make a backwards-compatibility configure switch
> > to enable the current "assert()" macro.  My natural inclination is to
> > discourage the use of naked assert() by disabling it in the default
> > build (i.e. if the switch is NOT given).  However, that's a bit
> > obnoxious if CppUnit has a long history of using the naked assert().
> > What is the general feeling about this?
> 
> My personal feeling is that since it conflicts with a standard C++ library
> macro the original inclusion should be treated as a bug, and it should be
> "fixed" (by making it NOT the default behavior). There absolutely needs to
> be mention of it in release notes and in the header file. But I think it's
> time to bite the bullet and make the change.  Reminds me of the XP process:
> When code is found to be wrong, just fix it. make whatever adjustments are
> necessary, and move on. Never to be bothered by that ugliness again.
> 
> Sure, there should be a way to turn the switch on at a project level, but
> that is a small change to a makefile after discovering that assert() is
> undefined.

That suggests to not even bother with a configure-time switch that
would enable the old macros.  Rather, they would be protected using
something like

	#if CU_ENABLE_NAKED_ASSERT
	#  define assert(c) CU_ASSERT(c)
	...
	#endif

Not a bad idea...



 
> Steve, I certainly appreciate your contributions to the project. I haven't
> had time to any actual code contribution yet, but I sure appreciate those
> who are doing so.

Thanks.  I appreciate the constructive feedback.  It is critical for
those using (or planning to use) CppUnit to speak up *now*.  Namespace
decisions, and the like are going to haunt us forever if we get them
wrong.

-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