From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-05 01:29:04
On Wednesday, September 4, 2002, at 2:38 PM, Gennadiy_at_[hidden] wrote:
>> I've haven't been following the new Test stuff that much, but your
>> words sound like that any code that uses (1) will currently
>> _break_ as
>> soon as the new Test stuff is released! I don't think that is
>> acceptable. Option (3) should be done to fix the problem.
>> Daryle Walker
> What code is using (1) at the moment? AFAIK it what introduced
> recently by
> Peter for his own testing. And I hope that after introducing of
> minimal test
> I addressed all the issued he had with new Boost.Test, so he would be
> to use minimal test header. All existent Boost tests modules should
> work as
> they worked before as soon as appropriate component is linked in.
As I said, I haven't been following too closely. Test files I have
written start off like
That's what I don't want to break when I'm retrying my tests.
> BTW I just realized one reason why we may not want to implement option
> as it is. I presume that nobody yet removed definition of the
> BOOST_INCLUDE_MAIN from their test modules, so introduction of (3)
> immediately switch all testing to minimal. I would prefer that by
> regular Boost.Test components will be used. Also it may require to
> all the Jamfiles.
After I saw this paragraph, I may misunderstand what is happening. Can
we clear up what the new Test library going to do to unaltered (yet)
Mac, Internet, Video Game Junkie
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk