Re: [Cppunit-devel] equality of const objects

[Baptiste L. <gai...@fr...>]

Quoting "Steve M. Robbins" <ste...@vi...>:

> On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 12:45:40PM -0700, Duane Murphy wrote:
> 
> > I would also make the argument (FWIW) that const is all that is
> needed.
> > Comparison operators should not be mutating. (Caches are caches and
> > should be marked mutable.)
> 
> I happen to agree with you.  If it were my decision alone, I'd just
> leave things as-is and let the folks who can't compare const objects
> to suffer for their sins.  ;-)
> 
> 
> > This is also where you want to make the change for comparing
> equivalent
> > objects (not the same type). The change would be thus:
> > 
> >      template <class TExepect, TActual>
> >      void assertEquals( const TExepect & expected,
> >                         const TActual & actual, ... )
> 
> I'm fairly skeptical that we want to allow this.  
> 
> I seem to recall changing my local copy of CppUnit some months ago to
> allow assertEquals() on two different types.  And I seem to recall
> running into problems because the compiler likes to promote types
> and use implicit conversions and all the other good stuff.  
> Sorry to not be more specific at this point...

  Euhh, I don't get it. We can perfectly control implicit conversion by 
defining one argument constructor explicit. Implicit conversion of basic type 
is something I (we?) want (unsigned int => int..., const char * => 
std::string)... It would make the test much easier to read...

  If unwanted implicit conversion occurs, wouldn't that point out a 'bug' ? Or 
was the problem, the compiler raising conflict because many conversions were 
possible ?

  Baptiste.

---
Baptiste Lepilleur <gai...@fr...>
http://gaiacrtn.free.fr/index.html
Language: English, French