On 08/16/2009 08:42 PM, Eduardo Cavazos wrote:
What I'm thinking of doing is using something like the 'check-assert'
syntax below, which uses the expr as the "test name" passed to
'test-assert'.
That's certainly and option, though I personally think having
having a mix of check- and test- commands is ugly. Plus having
to define an extra utility macro before writing a test-suite
is clumsy.
It might be better to change the reference implementation
to be a bit more verbose in the portable/generic case.
--
--Per Bothner
[email protected] http://per.bothner.com/
