From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-19 19:54:34
Stefan Seefeld <seefeld_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> Stefan Seefeld <seefeld_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>>It might be still possible to reuse the test running/result storing
>>>>infrastructure, but IMO it's non-trivial project.
>>>I think it's well worth the efford (and not that hard). If anybody wants
>>>to try, I'd be willing to help (though you may prefer to take the
>>>discussion off of this list).
>> And what's the point of this exercise? I don't think we should
>> introduce yet another tool which even fewer people know how to
>> maintain unless the benefits are really dramatic.
> someone asked how tests were performed, specifically, whether there's
> a way to compare a test's output with some expected string.
> You answered that this was currently not possible.
> I suggested to look at qmtest, because it provides a flexible way to
> define tests (way beyond just comparing stdout).
What are the benefits it would add "beyond just comparing stdout"?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk