Re: [boost] Boost test tools - do we still need test toolsandminimal test?

From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-01 20:23:53

"Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:drrm1b$50q$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
>> 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?
>
> I personally agree with you. Minimal facility is more light weight. Some 
> people value this.  Lets hear from the community.

FWIW I  would like to use Minimal Test but unfortunately it doesnt define 
BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE so I wound up faking all the test macros I needed myself. I 
had to do something  because Bjam wouldnt build  anything boost using DJGPP gcc 
on Windows, so I couldnt build test for that compiler, easily at least.

regards
Andy Little