Re: Formal review: New Boost.Test Library

From: rogeeff (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-12-11 16:53:33

--- In boost_at_y..., "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_h...> wrote:
> I vote to accept.
> 
> I won't comment at any kind of deep level.  I've had no more time 
> with this library then what was needed to read the documentation.  
> This leaves me with the impression that it covers unit testing 
> nicely, even if it makes more use of macros than I like (though I 
> admit that it would be difficult to impossible to change these to 
> templates).  The only constructive criticisms I can give are that 
the 
> documentation could use some polishing by an English speaking 
member 
> (though obviously this is not crucial to the acceptance or 
inclusion 
> of this library) and that I dislike the timeout portions of the 
> library.  The timeouts are way too platform specific.  No matter 
how 
> useful they are, unless we can make them portable I'd prefer they 
be 
> left out entirely.
> 
> Bill Kempf

Timeout is implementing only for UNIX platforms using alarm and 
SIGALRM hadnler. It's pretty portable solution (on UNIX platforms).

Gennadiy.