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

[Baptiste L. <bl...@cl...>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve M. Robbins" <ste...@vi...>
To: <cpp...@li...>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 9:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Cppunit-devel] ch-ch-ch-changes ...


> 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'll go for that, or cu_assert.  I kind of prefer the later since it is
emulating a function call (and it would be nice if we could have it working
without macro even if there is information loss) and does attrack the eyes
as much as you read the code.

> 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...
    Funny, I was about to suggest something like that. Enable both form to
make migration easy...

Baptiste.
---
Baptiste Lepilleur <gai...@fr...>   http://gaiacrtn.free.fr/index.html
Author of The Text Reformatter, a tool for fanfiction readers and writers.
Language: English, French (Well, I'm French).