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

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-02 10:32:00

David Abrahams wrote:
> "Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> So you choose to use BOOST_ASSERT. That essentially means that you
>> couldn't have more than one failure.
>
> Usually my presumption is that if an assert fails, I can't really have
> confidence in anything thereafter anyway.

Fans of assert-based testing may want to check out 
<boost/detail/lightweight_test.hpp>, which is what I use for testing 
smart_ptr and bind. :-)