RE: [Cppunit-devel] ExtendedTextTestRunner

[Philippe F. <P....@OB...>]

> I appreciate your dislike of long, capitalized macros, but I do not 
> think polluting the namespace with lots of macros which look like method 
> calls is a good idea. 

It is certainly not a good idea, unless you know what are doing. I developed
this for me only at the beginning, so I knew exactly what I was doing.

> I believe CppUnit did that at one point in the 
> past until it was decided that was a bad idea.  See 
> CPPUNIT_ENABLE_NAKED_ASSERT in include/cppunit/TestAssert.h.  However, 
> perhaps that could be a feature rather than just for backwards 
> compatibility, so those who want to 'import' lots of unqualified 
> assertion macros can do so.  If you define qualified names names for 
> your macros, eg CPPUNIT_PHIL_..., then you could add shorter macro names 
> protected by ifdef CPPUNIT_ENABLE_NAKED_ASSERT.  Then everyone could use 
> your macros who does not want the short names, and others can allow the 
> short names wherever they want.

Exactly. The point of my posting is not to include my contribution as is,
but ask for inclusion of similar facilities.

Naming the simple assert check() for example is a bad idea, the name is too
casual. Maybe the sort asserts should be prefixed with cu.

Anyway, I hope this gets considered for inclusion in the next release.

	regards,

	Philippe