At 01:04 PM 2/28/2001 -0600, Ed Brey wrote:

> 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.

The point of having _TEST as the second word was to make it clear what
Boost library they were associated with. But I go back and forth on the
names. How about these:

BOOST_TEST(exp)
BOOST_CRITICAL_TEST(exp)
BOOST_ERROR(msg)
BOOST_CRITICAL_ERROR(msg)

They seem clear enough to me, but I'm so close I can't see the forest for
the trees. Comments?

--Beman