From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-25 14:00:34
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Being the conservative I am,
...and that I value...
> I'd like to keep the current way operational without altering the
> behavior of the tests that are written correctly and do work.
Of course; I intended that.
> The automatic reporting outlined above always leads to abnormal termination
> when there are errors; I don't like this. The alternative that just
> terminates when report_errors hasn't been called seems workable.
Sorry, I must've left out a little. I had assumed that
report_errors() reset the error count to zero, so when the singleton
got destroyed it would only abort if there were unreported errors.
> One consequence of the minimal interface of lightweight_test.hpp is
> that main(), including its 'return' statement, is completely under
> the control of the user.
Yeah, I know. That's a liability when it comes to the mistake I'm
> It would probably be possible to make it slightly less lightweight
> and error prone by defining a BOOST_TEST_CASE macro and requiring a
> main() of the form
> int main()
> return boost::run_test_cases();
Yes, but that would not help catch errors in existing uses of the
> Well, the current way has worked for me so far. :-)
You, maybe, but several others made mistakes.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk