> Actually I was hoping you would choose option 3. :-) For me, option 2 > just doesn't feel right. And I think it's not in the spirit of the > standard, either. (Implicit conversion from char * to string doesn't > exist, a char * is just a pointer.) I would classify this as > "suprising behaviour" which should be avoided wherever possible.
Test library is all about usability and only then generocity or "standart purity". Would you be working with c strings I wonder how long it will take until you became tired adding std::string on both sides of comparison: BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL( std::string( s ), std::string( t ) ); ... BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL( std::string( s ), std::string( t ) ); ... BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL( std::string( s ), std::string( t ) ); and will introduce simple forwarding macro #define M_CHECK_EQUAL_STR( s, t ) \ BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL( std::string( s ), std::string( t ) ); Boost.Test is doing this for you now. There is a very little posibility of misuse (comparison of pointers as check for correctness is very strange things in general IMO). Gennadiy. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
