Subject: Re: [boost] [unit_test_framework] plans?
From: Dmitry Goncharov (dgoncharov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-08-03 05:36:35
Thanks for your reply,
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> 1. This subject is discussed in length. Boost.Test opted for
> portability in between platform, instead of interchangeability between
> static and shared libraries. This is not a restriction, this is
> feature ;)
Can't really see how interchangeability between static and shared
libraries prevents portability between platforms.
Anyway, from your answer i understand that it is going to stay this way.
> 2. Am I to understand that you are library developer who ships unit
> tests along with library?
> 3. If answer is yes, do you ship your own makefiles?
> if yes, you can enforce specific library there.
It is possible to enforce a specific library. It's also uncomfortable
for the user.
> 4. If not, you can use single header variant of UTF and do not depend
> on library at all.
That's right. This will increase compilation time.
> It's not like your users are going to build your test modules over and
That's right, the users aren't going to build test modules over an over.
The developer (e.g. me) builds tests modules over and over.
> 5. Your last option if none of the above fits is to make notes in
> documentation ;)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk