Mailing-List: contact stdcxx-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <445B8268.9070904@roguewave.com>
Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 10:50:48 -0600
From: Martin Sebor <sebor@roguewave.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050920
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: svn commit: r399914 - in /incubator/stdcxx/trunk/tests/strings:
 21.string.append.cpp 21.string.assign.cpp 21.string.insert.cpp
 21.string.op.plus.equal.cpp
 21.string.replace.cpp
References: <4D6A8407B7AC6F4D95B0E55C4E7C4C620427644F@exmsk.moscow.vdiweb.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <4D6A8407B7AC6F4D95B0E55C4E7C4C620427644F@exmsk.moscow.vdiweb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Anton Pevtsov wrote:
> Martin Sebor wrote:
> 
>>Anton, this simplifies the exception safety setup. Another change
> 
> [...]
> 
>>I'll try to cook one up over the weekend or sometime next week.
> 
> 
> The changes looks good. I'll use them porting the rest of the tests. 
> I plan to port tests for access, ctor, update the test for swap and
> accommodate already ported tests to your planned changes.

Sounds like a plan!

> 
> Martin Sebor wrote:
> 
>>Btw., I noticed that the 21.string.copy.cpp hasn't been converted to
> 
> the new simplified format yet. This is just a reminder that we should >
> remember to do so before we move on to other (non-string) tests.
> 
> Yes, today I updated this test. The changes are here:
> http://people.apache.org/~antonp/stdcxx05052006/

Great, thanks for taking care of it! Committed thus:
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=400096&view=rev

[...]
> I think we need to port tests for 
> 21.string.ctor
> 21.string.access (I am working on this now)
> 
> And implement tests for
> 21.string.swap (it is ready, but needed to be converted to the
> simplified format)

Okay.

> string methods c_str(), data(), begin(), end(), rbegin(), rend(),
> get_allocator().

Most (all?) of these should probably go in the same test.

> 
> Also I noticed that we have missed push_back method in the append test. 
> Btw, shall we have special MemberId enum element for this method and
> separate elements for operator[] and at ?

I guess we might as well. It will give us centralized control
over all string member functions.

Martin