From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-14 03:27:26
"Dave Steffen" <dgsteffen_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > Yep. That's the reason expected failures usage should be
> > limited.
> Well, yes. In fact, I'm curious about your use cases for expected
> failures. What do you think it means for a failure to be expected?
In my own test modules I don't use it at all. But than here at wark we don't
have well esteblished regression testing.
> Ah... we're in the process of moving to 1.33.1 right now. (We have
> to do regression tests, etc.) We'll go to 1.34 when it comes out,
> unless it's seriously delayed... hmm... [comments snipped] :-)
I recommend you to try to use 1.34 RC even if it is Boost.Test only. My
guess it should work even when compiled in 1.33.1 environment.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk