Re: [boost] Re: Re: Boost.Test online?

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-20 07:56:49

At 04:41 AM 8/20/2002, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:

 >> Well, that isn't quite right.  "inline" isn't 100% right either, but it 

 >is
 >> seems better than "online" to me.
 >I think that inline would be misleading (at least for the Test/Program
 >Execution Monitor headers ) since in fact library is implemented offline.
 >Maybe we could separate it into
 >
 >boost/test/online/test_execution_monitor.cpp
 >boost/test/online/prg_execution_monitor.cpp
 >and
 >boost/test/minimal.hpp or boost/test/lightweight.hpp ?

I think changing the directory name to "basic", "lite", "lightweight", or 
similar would be better:

   boost/test/basic/...

 >>  >One question is open though: what features minimalist test header
 >should
 >>  >support?
 >>
 >> I was just thinking of the V1 features. It might be OK to add to the
 >> feature set, but the whole point is to be minimalist. So less is 
better,
 >> IMO. After all, anyone who wants more can use the full framework.
 >Ok. I will work on it. How much time do I have?

Well, if you check it in before Thursday, 6 AM US East Coast time, we can 
do some testing before the branch for release later in the day.

--Beman