Re: Building boost.

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 
at the 
> >code they might think it was a mistake and remove it.
> 
> On second thought,  in most cases couldn't BOOST_TEST be used 
instead of
> assert - I realise this involves some reworking of old code, but it 
might
> 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
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/john_maddock/

Gennadiy.