From: Kim Barrett (kab_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-07 11:31:23
At 1:57 AM -0500 11/7/05, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> > Well, when people are just dipping their toes in the test library
>> waters they are likely to start with minimal.hpp,
>God, I hope not. The only reason this component exists is because some
>people here on the list, who were familiar with original testing library
>wanted something for backward compatibility. In fact for the new users I
>don't see almost any reasons to use it at all. Boost.Test provides better
Quoting from the introduction to the documentation section for the
Minimal Testing facility:
Minimal testing facility does not require linking with external components,
so could be a component of choice for simple and quick testing needs.
Perhaps something more akin to your message above should be in this
introduction. Note that one of my co-workers also went down this
minimal-testing rat hole, after I had extolled the capabilities of
Boots.Test but before I'd written the brief "How we use Boost.Test"
introduction for my co-workers (which basically says, "Use the auto
unit test framework, unless you have a really good reason not to, and
then think hard about that reason for a while first.").
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk