Mailing-List: contact dev-help@stdcxx.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <48753927.1000301@roguewave.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:18:15 -0600
From: Martin Sebor <sebor@roguewave.com>
Organization: Rogue Wave Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080226)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Subject: Re: Static assertions in tests?
References: 
 <CFFDD219128FD94FB4F92B99F52D0A4901DB0642@exchmail01.Blue.Roguewave.Com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CFFDD219128FD94FB4F92B99F52D0A4901DB0642@exchmail01.Blue.Roguewave.Com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Eric Lemings wrote:
>  
> For compile-time tests, would it be preferable to use a static assertion
> or continue using good ol' rw_assert() even for compile-time checks?  In
> the former case, the test will fail to build and, in the latter case,
> the compile-time check will not be easily distinguisable from other
> runtime assertions.

I would recommend against using one component of the library
(static_assert) to test another.

The approach taken by existing tests is to verify types and
signatures by using them in ways that would make the tests
ill-formed if they didn't match the requirements, causing
a compiler error. You can see examples of this approach in
the 23.vector.cons.cpp test that was just mentioned.

Martin