Stefan Dösinger stefandoesinger@gmx.at writes:
On Saturday 10 September 2011 21:56:26 Dan Kegel wrote:
Might want to define the new form as ok2_ or something so we can defer changing the explicit uses of ok_().
I dislike the idea, it has the feeling of legacy cruft. Either way it is a fairly minor point - the main change that needs debating is whether we should print the function name or not.
We don't want that by default, especially since __FUNCTION__ is not portable. If you have cases where you get frequent failures that are hard to debug, you can always print extra info in the ok message.