Re: [boost] [unit_test_framework] plans?

Subject: Re: [boost] [unit_test_framework] plans?
From: Dmitry Goncharov (dgoncharov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-08-08 13:17:31

Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> There is also such thing as backward compatibility. Don't you think users who
> currently use static library variant of UTF would complain if all their test
> would start failing linking?
>   
I am not expecting anybody to break backward compatibility now.
This just one solution that could have been implemented and it wasn't 
for some reason.
I'm not sure that solution is worthy since it increases complexity.
IMHO, the correct solution is to always have main() in the unit test and 
never have it in a library.
I started this thread to find out what caused this uncomfortable 
situation about static and dynamic libraries.
 From you answers its clear that the situation is this just because it 
has been this way from the beginning.

> There is an option already to have static library without main
> BOOST_TEST_NO_MAIN, but it had to be used when library is built.
>
>
>   
Thanks for your help.

BR, Dmitry