Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] What Should we do About Boost.Test?
From: Ian Emmons (iemmons_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-09-27 18:08:09


On Sep 27, 2012, at 4:56 PM, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> Paul A. Bristow <pbristow <at>> writes:
>> 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 can't speak for Paul, of course, but I would like it if I could build Boost.Test libraries (libboost_unit_test_framework*) without the monitor stuff (libboost_test_exec_monitor* and libboost_prg_exec_monitor*).



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