Re: [boost] Re: Boost.Test docs: **** missing!! ****

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-23 17:36:14

----- Original Message -----
From: "rogeeff" <rogeeff_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 5:30 PM
Subject: [boost] Re: Boost.Test docs: **** missing!! ****

> --- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:
>
> > > > What's the key difference? Why wouldn't Program ExMon be used
> for
> > > test
> > > > programs?
> > >
> > > Test Execution Monitor will allow to use Test Tools.
>
> > ...and why wouldn't Test Execution Monitor be used for production
> programs?
>
> Test Execution Monitor could be used to monitor production programs.
> But since they does not contain any Test Tools references, no reason
> to use Test Execution Monitor, since PrExeMon will do the work for
> less overhead (no big a defference but still).
>   There is also subtle differences in error reporting mechanisms.

Then why don't we call Program Execution Monitor "Lightweight Execution
Monitor" instead, if that's the distinguishing feature? "Program" doesn't
say anything, because everything is a program.

-Dave