Re: [boost] [unit_test_framework] plans?

Subject: Re: [boost] [unit_test_framework] plans?
From: Dmitry Goncharov (dgoncharov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-08-03 05:36:35

Thanks for your reply,

Gennadiy Rozental wrote:

> 1. This subject is discussed in length. Boost.Test opted for 
> portability in between platform, instead of interchangeability between 
> static and shared libraries. This is not a restriction, this is 
> feature ;)
Can't really see how interchangeability between static and shared 
libraries prevents portability between platforms.
Anyway, from your answer i understand that it is going to stay this way.
>
> 2. Am I to understand that you are library developer who ships unit 
> tests along with library?
That's right.
>
>
> 3. If answer is yes, do you ship your own makefiles?
yes
> if yes, you can enforce specific library there.
It is possible to enforce a specific library. It's also uncomfortable 
for the user.
>
> 4. If not, you can use single header variant of UTF and do not depend 
> on library at all.
That's right. This will increase compilation time.

> It's not like your users are going to build your test modules over and 
> over.
That's right, the users aren't going to build test modules over an over. 
The developer (e.g. me) builds tests modules over and over.
>
> 5. Your last option if none of the above fits is to make notes in 
> documentation ;)
>
> Gennadiy
>
>
BR, Dmitry