Re: RFC: GLib testing framework

["Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen" <mikkel kamstrup gmail com>]

On 09/11/2007, Tim Janik <timj imendio com> wrote:

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:

> On 07/11/2007, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen <mikkel kamstrup gmail com> wrote:

>> How about token concatenation[1]?

i have to use that already for the current implementation,
see my recent header:
   http://git.imendio.com/?p=timj/glib-testing.git;a=blob;f=glib/gtestframework.h;hb=617f2d3398e969bc2c38e1e6138a98cfaf91c7b9

> If anybody agrees with me that we must have an IDE friendly syntax, or have
> other reasons to believe that
>
>   g_assert_cmpint (1, G_EQUALS, 2);

i don't quite see the benefit here. if there was a need to avoid the
operator notation however, i'd definitely prefer something like:

    g_assert_int_lt (1, 2);
    g_assert_int_le (1, 2);
    g_assert_int_eq (1, 2);
    g_assert_int_ne (1, 2);

for <, <=, ==, != respectively.

That is certainly another possibility. However a design goal of my code was to only expose one public symbol per simple type and let the rest of the public methods be implemented in macros wrapping these symbols. I am not sure that is viable with your above solution.

Cheers,
Mikkel