I really like INFO(); that's a nice feature I've not seen anywhere else. What are the differences between a C++ and Objective-C test framework? Is there anythi

I really like INFO(); that's a nice feature I've not seen anywhere else. What are the differences between a C++ and Objective-C test framework? Is there anything ObjC-specific about CATCH? Some of the other design choices here I've used, and later abandoned, in my own testing libraries: > The assertion macro is REQUIRE( expression ), rather than the, now traditional, REQUIRE_EQUALS( lhs, rhs ), or similar. Don't worry - lhs and rhs are captured anyway - more on this later. Using C++ operators for assertions is very limiting; some interesting assertions, like floating-point near-equality, have no operator and thus must be tested separately. I like to use separate functions to build "assertion results", so you can get code equivalent to: REQUIRE(equal(lhs, rhs)); REQUIRE(equal_within(lhs, rhs, 0.001)); REQUIRE(not_null(lhs)); and so on. With this style, you also get multi-variable assertions and value capture for free. > We didn't name the function. We named the test case. This frees us from couching our names in legal C++ identifiers. We also provide a longer form description that serves as an active comment It can be nice to have a description of the test case, but free-form names like you have are a major pain to write out on the command line if you're running a particular set of tests during development. If you want a description, allow it in addition to the test name.