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
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 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] http://www.hetp.u-net.com/index.html http://www.hetp.u-net.com/Paul%20A%20Bristow%20info.html
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk