From: Jens Maurer (Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-02-13 16:18:01
These are my personal comments. They are not to be confused with my
role as review manager.
In general, I vote for acceptance of the library.
test_tools.hpp includes a definition for main() only if
BOOST_INCLUDE_MAIN is defined. This seems prudent, but it means that
the test programs such as test_tools_example.cpp and test_tools_fail*.cpp
should define it before including the file.
It seems inappropriate to do so in the compiler.cfg for the
I'd rather move the test tools to some boost/test/XXX.hpp subdirectory,
because we expect the addition of unit tests as well. Besides, the
usage for the test headers is rather specific, so there's no need
to put it at the same level as e.g. smart pointers.
The return code in the example of execution_tools.htm needs to be adjusted
to the current state in the actual *.cpp files.
Can we have the output formatting in catch_exceptions.hpp separated
into another static function so that the "****" doesn't repeat too
often in the source? Nothing fancy, just
std::string format_exception(const char * name, const char *info);
where "info" is usually "ex.what()" except for a few special cases.
test_tools.htm: I like the CRITICAL part suggested in another mail
instead of the _ASSERT suffix. I think the _CRITICAL suffix is more
logical than putting it in between somewhere.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk