Phil Nash

if this was something that you might genuinely need to do much of it would probably make sense to provide a pair-specific range generator to reduce that syntax a bit...

Of course with structured bindings you could get: ```c++ TEST_CASE( "eval" ) { auto [test_input, expected] = GENERATE( pairs({ {"3+5", 8}, {"2+4", 6}, {"6*9", 42} })); REQUIRE( eval( test_input )...

However wrt "Data generators, or parametrised tests: i.e. you want to re-use the same core set of assertions with a range" - this is primarily talking about where you can...

I'm definitely sympathetic to DRY, but also observe that there is sometimes a tension between DRY and clarity. In your example I think it becomes less obvious what each of...

Thinking about it, perhaps it's a presentation issue. E.g. I could format your example as: ``` import pytest @pytest.mark.parametrize("name,data,flag,count,expected_bytes,expected_size", [ # name | data, | flag | count | exp....

Not sure I can completely deduce the types when passing tuples - but I've got it working like this, at the moment (where each row of this "table" is a...

@johnthagen works in C++11, except for the structured bindings, of course (which are just syntactic sugar here)

The intention is to link to the video and slides from the website - but may make sense to do it this way around, too (as well as link to...

If all the tests belong together, but some are hierarchically higher-level and should be executed first (or last - or both) then you can do this already by using nested...

It doesn't, currently. I was going to do a lot more integration work on the Obj-C side (including an iOS test runner) but with Swift gaining traction now I'm no...