Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] What Should we do About Boost.Test?
From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-09-27 16:56:05

Paul A. Bristow <pbristow <at>> writes:
> I'd like some changes (output layout is annoying),

What about it? And what changes?

> I would prefer a Boost.Test2 that was much more lightweight
> and preferably header-only.

All these statements about "lightweight" makes me wonder:

* What exactly in your opinion makes Boost.Test not "lightweight"?
* What exactly is wrong with Boost.Test header only solution?
* What exactly would you throw out to make it more lightweight?

> I'm willing to help with documentation (having 'mastered'
> the Quickbook toolchain for Boost.Math
> etc) but I don't think that is really the main issue.

Will quickbook be able to produce the same output current boostbook files do?


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