Re: [boost] [Release 1.34] Supported Compilers - another view

From: Paul A Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-02 07:47:17

| -----Original Message-----
| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of David Abrahams
| Sent: 01 February 2006 20:48
| To: boost_at_[hidden]
| Subject: Re: [boost] [Release 1.34] Supported Compilers - another view
| 
| Easier than BOOST_ASSERT?

Well hardly more difficult - once you have the libraries built.

| Yes.  What do you get from those macros that's very useful beyond what
| BOOST_ASSERT supplies?  I really want to know.  Some people I'll be
| consulting with next week want to know about testing procedures for
| C++, and if there's a reason to recommend Boost.Test, I'd like to do that.

Floating-point tests are a really nasty with asserts.

Despite the previously confusing documentation (better available Real Soon
Now),
Boost.Test is MUCH better - show exactly what the tests and values etc are..

I also like the documentation that you can get - a file that proves what
tests you did, and when,

and which passed - shows when things are improving.

I HATE the way asserts that fail bring the whole business to a halt.

Seeing which of a group of tests fail is a real help.

I like it - a lot.

Paul

-- 
Paul A Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
Phone and SMS text [phone], Mobile and SMS text [phone]
mailto: pbristow_at_[hidden]  http://www.hetp.u-net.com/index.html
http://www.hetp.u-net.com/Paul%20A%20Bristow%20info.html