Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] What Should we do About Boost.Test?
From: Lorenzo Caminiti (lorcaminiti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-09-17 13:39:22

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:18 AM, John Maddock <boost.regex_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> I don't know what to do about this. Because of the lack of redundancy
>> (i.e. tests and documentation), it's hard to tell whether this library
>> is correct or even to define what "correct" should mean. It seems like,
>> as long as the code is incompletely / incorrectly documented and tested,
>> it's just someone's personal coding project that we happen to keep
>> shipping with Boost, and not really a library for general use. This
>> situation reflects poorly on Boost as a whole and the fact that it
>> centers around a _testing_ library, which is concerned with
>> robustness... well, let's just say that the irony isn't lost on me.
> Just one other data point: major updates to Boost.Test have broken my stuff
> on more than one occation (actually it feels like *every* time there's been
> an update, but that's probably an exageration).
> As a result for the multiprecision library I decided not to use it, and
> wrote my own extensions to the lightweight test framework in /boost/detail/
> that emulate (nearly) all the BOOST_CHECK* macros. It's not ideal, but at
> least I know it's stable and lightweight.

I use LightweightTest often instead of Boost.Test (also because
LightweightTest is hear-only and compiles faster). It'd be nice to
reconcile these two libs--but that's even more work...


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at