Eric Lemings wrote:
[...]
We ususally don't use the __FILE__ tag with code that is in
the original
test file. I'm not exactly sure why, but I don't recall ever seeing it
used.
Perhaps this is to reduce the amount of output generated in the output
files?
Hehe. Who knows why some files omit it.
Passing null to rw_assert() makes the driver substitute the file
name argument passed to rw_test().
I think its just something
that's
been carried over without a second's thought. Sort of like why many
template
parameters are named "_TypeT" when there is only one type parameter.
The name
"_TypeT" is actually only needed in contexts where there's a
corresponding
"_TypeU". Otherwise, the name "_Type" is sufficient.
FYI: The reason for the _Type prefix to T or U is to prevent
collisions with system macros named _T (or _U). When we found
the problem we just globally inserted the _Type prefix into
the names of all typed template parameters. I personally like
the T in there for consistency with all the other names.
Another thing to note is that most of the stdcxx tests don't display
anything other than the header when they run, unless something fails.
Ah. The --trace option is new to me. I guess it's supposed to act sort
of like the the rw_info() calls. I'll keep that in mind when writing
test code in the future.
Right. The option makes the informational messages pretty
much redundant.
Martin
