From: Beman Dawes <bdawes@[...]..> 
>  Agreed. I've cut the macro names down to:
> 
>  BOOST_TEST(exp)
>  BOOST_TEST_CRITICAL(exp)
>  BOOST_TEST_ERROR(msg)
>  BOOST_TEST_ERROR_CRITICAL(msg)
> 
>  BOOST_TEST seems to me to be as meaningful as BOOST_TEST_VERIFY, yet is a
>  bit shorter, which is important for this most heavily used macro.
> 
>  BOOST_TEST_ERROR seemed to relate better to the error reported than
>  BOOST_TEST_FAILURE.
> 
>  If anyone has a serious objection to these names, please let me know
before
>  the release.

If I disengage the previous knowledge section of my brain (to the extent
possible), the new names seem a bit confusing to me. The difference between
BOOST_TEST_CRITICAL and BOOST_TEST_ERROR_CRITICAL doesn't seem intuitively
obvious. I think the crux of the problem is that the last two macros don't
test anything; they just report. So perhaps BOOST_REPORT_ERROR and
BOOST_REPORT_CRITICAL_ERROR or, for more brevity, just BOOST_ERROR and
BOOST_CRITICAL_ERROR might be good. The latter choice feels in harmony
with the #error preprocessor directive, which is a good thing.

In any case, I would recommend using CRITICAL_ERROR rather than
ERROR_CRITICAL, as having the adjective first sounds more natural in
English.