Boost logo

Boost :

From: Paul A Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-30 12:43:51


| -----Original Message-----
| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Gennadiy Rozental
| Sent: 30 January 2006 15:49
| To: boost_at_[hidden]
| Subject: Re: [boost] Boost test tools using static library -
| operatornewlinkproblem
| > By The Way, before we get too far into doc updates, is
| there a really good
| > reason why unit test framework and test tools are separate
| libraries?
| > They
| Test Tools isn't a separate library. Just a separate component of
| Boost.Test.
| > appear to be the same apart from one extra file. Would it
| not reduce
| > confusion/compile time... to just have ONE library file.
| >
| > I'm still not sure I understand when to use either a test_suite
| > unit_unit_test_suite, or int test_main.
| You probable means the Unit Test Framework vs. the Test
| Execution Monitor.
| The later is just single test cases version if first one. To
| be completely
| frank with you I do not see real need for the Test Execution
| Monitor now.
| It's just as easy to write BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(test_main). But from
| historical reason I would keep it for now.

I think you should think about at least deprecating it, and taking it out of
the new documentation (relegating it to a 'historial' annex out of the main
product description).

I think it seriously confuses the whole business. When I started, I almost
tripped at the first hurdle because I didn't know what I wanted. I fear
others won't have been sold by your excellent 'Today I'm going to start
testing as I write, flossing my teeth ..." article.

There is also additional confusion with minimal test. Is it now looking so
simple that we don't need that (documented) either?


Paul A Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
Phone and SMS text +44 1539 561830, Mobile and SMS text +44 7714 330204
mailto: pbristow_at_[hidden]

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at