From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-30 19:37:17
At 02:31 PM 10/30/2001, Mike Attili wrote:
>Specific comments on the present implementation below,
>but first a more general observation.
>It seems to me that there should be a clean separation
>between the 'test tools' and the 'unit test tools'. At
>the moment, 'test_tools.hpp' simply includes 'unit_test.hpp'.
>I see the 'test tools' interface comprising the current
>'unit_test_tools.hpp' and 'unit_test_log.hpp' plus
>'test_main.cpp'. This gives one the ability to use
>the various BOOST_TEST(), BOOST_CHECK(), etc. macros
>without pulling in the whole test case/test suite
>machinery. There would always only be one test case
>so there is no sense in setting the number of test
>cases or reporting progress.
That was like my original design, but Ullrich Koethe and others felt that
test tools could be more sophisticated if they were built on top of the
unit test framework. In my mind that makes the unit test tools
unnecessarily complex and introduces an undesirable dependency. On the
plus side, it does make the test tools more capable, and more uniform with
At the time of that discussion, I don't think we realized that adding the
dependency on unit test might mean that test tools could become unusable on
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk