Re: [boost] comment on Boost.Test

From: Thomas Matelich (sosedada_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-03-20 18:46:20

nbecker_at_[hidden] wrote:

> A number of unit test efforts appear to derive from junit.  cppunit is
> one.  It looks to me that this may be OK for testing classes, but in
> C++ not everything is a class.  I also need to test plain old
> functions.  I'm really looking for something very lightweight and
> flexible, and not necessarily limited to classes.

Just to clarify, there is no reason that anything needs to be a class when
using cppunit.  A testrunner holds a function pointer.  You might think that
because that is how it is most often used.  And Beman makes a good point
that if you don't like the framework, you can use the other test tools from
boost.

--
Thomas O Matelich
Senior Software Designer
Zetec, Inc.
sosedada_at_[hidden]
tmatelich_at_[hidden]