From: Rozental, Gennadiy (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-21 13:00:00
> Thank you Peter. After the release, I'll definitely move
> Spirit to use this simple, no frills, test utility. The
> requirements for such a facility should be 1) Works 100% on
> *ALL* compilers 2) Is transparent and does not get in the way
> (you can pretend it's not there at all) 3) Is 100% stable (no
> frequent API changes)
> 4) Is as simple as possible (less chance for Murphy's law to
> kick in). IMO, Boost.Test does not satisfactorily satisfy
> these requirements.
Boost.Test minimal testing facility practically did not change since the day
it was introduced (maybe only licence test updates).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk