From: rogeeff (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-03 13:14:57
--- In boost_at_y..., John Maddock <John_Maddock_at_c...> wrote:
> >John's approach is probably better. But there should be a comment
> >explaining why it is being done - if someone just casually glanced
> >code they might think it was a mistake and remove it.
> On second thought, in most cases couldn't BOOST_TEST be used
> assert - I realise this involves some reworking of old code, but it
> be worth it in the long run?
BOOST_CHECK with New Test Library. Actually new BTL provide variety
of different tools. One may want to use BOOST_REQUIRE to get the same
effect as assert.
> - John Maddock
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk