• Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> Feb 08 2011
• David Nadlinger <see klickverbot.at> Feb 08 2011
• Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> Feb 08 2011
• Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> Feb 08 2011
• "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> Feb 08 2011
• Jim <bitcirkel yahoo.com> Feb 08 2011
• "Lars T. Kyllingstad" <public kyllingen.NOSPAMnet> Feb 14 2011
• Jens Mueller <jens.k.mueller gmx.de> Feb 14 2011

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

Reply here to vote ONLY for the function assertNotThrown in Jonathan M 
Davis's std.unittests. Vote closes on Feb 15.

Andrei

David Nadlinger <see klickverbot.at> writes:

On 2/8/11 4:30 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Reply here to vote ONLY for the function assertNotThrown in Jonathan M
 Davis's std.unittests. Vote closes on Feb 15.


Sorry, I didn't phrase the part of my previous message concerning 
assertNotThrown and collectExceptionMsg quite clearly. What I meant is 
that I personally never felt the need for assertNotThrown and 
collectExceptionMsg, contrary to assertThrown, which I use pretty 
regularly. If others find these useful, I don't see any reasons not to 
include them, though.

Concerning assertNotThrown specifically, I usually just call the 
function in question – if it throws unexpectedly, the exception makes 
the unit test fail anyway. This approach obviously doesn't allow you to 
filter only a single exception type, but I have a hard time trying to 
imagine where you would really need something like that. Also, you can't 
specify an extra assert message, but I'd rather like to be able to use 
named unit test blocks for that (what was the result of the discussion 
on them again?).

David

Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:

Voting Yes.

Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:

Am 08.02.2011 16:30, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
 Reply here to vote ONLY for the function assertNotThrown in Jonathan M Davis's
 std.unittests. Vote closes on Feb 15.
 
 Andrei


Voting YES, because (quoting my post in another Thread):


Maybe it can be nested like

  assertThrown!Exception( assertNotThrown!MyException( fun(42) ) );

to ensure that fun() doesn't throw a MyException, but does throws another
Exception [which is a super-class of the Exception that may not be thrown]?


Cheers,
- Daniel

"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:

"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote in message 
news:iirnmf$28ig$5 digitalmars.com...
 Reply here to vote ONLY for the function assertNotThrown in Jonathan M 
 Davis's std.unittests. Vote closes on Feb 15.


"YES"

Jim <bitcirkel yahoo.com> writes:

Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:

 Reply here to vote ONLY for the function assertNotThrown in Jonathan M 
 Davis's std.unittests. Vote closes on Feb 15.
 
 Andrei



Yes!

"Lars T. Kyllingstad" <public kyllingen.NOSPAMnet> writes:

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 10:30:08 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 Reply here to vote ONLY for the function assertNotThrown in Jonathan M
 Davis's std.unittests. Vote closes on Feb 15.
 
 Andrei


Yes

Jens Mueller <jens.k.mueller gmx.de> writes:

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Reply here to vote ONLY for the function assertNotThrown in Jonathan
 M Davis's std.unittests. Vote closes on Feb 15.
 
 Andrei


Yes. I find it useful.

Jens