RE: Boost.Test problems (Was: [boost] Multiple link definitions o n Darwintests)

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).

Gennadiy.