From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-10 12:32:43
"Vladimir Prus" <ghost_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
>>> It think the question is still reasonable. Can you have *static* library
>>> called unit_test_framework_main that would contain the stock definition
>>> of the 'main' function?
>> I am not sure I understand: static version of the UTF does have function
>> main() implementation included.
> Yes, but I mean that it's possible to have:
> - UTF, that is build either as static lib or DLL and does *not*
> have any main function.
> - Small static library that contains stock definition of main.
No. This is not going to be acceptable IMO.
> So, when using UTF DLL, user must "just" link to an extra library, which
> might be simpler than defining macroses.
Why? How is it easier?
> And importantly, Boost.Build V2
> can make this transparent for all Boost.Test users inside Boost.
Not everybody are using Boost.Build.
IMO the issue is not that significant. In a long term Boost.Test users
should switch to auto generated test tree and this case is easily supported
in both builds. Conversion in 95% of the cases is straightforward and simple
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk