Re: [boost] [test] still broken in release

Subject: Re: [boost] [test] still broken in release
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-08-14 04:57:22

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Gennadiy Rozental
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 4:17 AM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [test] still broken in release
> 
> Richard <legalize+jeeves <at> mail.xmission.com> writes:
> 
> > >BOOST_TEST( a > b )
> > >BOOST_TEST( a != b )
> > >BOOST_TEST( a + b < 2 )
> >
> > So what "level" is this?
> 
> This is check level, we'll also have BOOST_TEST_WARN, BOOST_TEST_CHECK(same as BOOST_TEST) and
> BOOST_TEST_REQUIRE.
> 
> So, what the resolution? Are you interested to cover latest state of Boost.Test or do I need to
push
> forward by myself? Do not take this wrong way
> - I would definitely prefer to work with someone who is more comfortable with writing docs than
doing
> it all by myself. And I can even live with quickbook, if it can handle all we need. Yet I need to
cover new
> Boost.Test, not rewrite docs for old one. I really hope we can collaborate on this.

I hope so too.  I find Richard's Quickbook/Doxygen version *much* more user-friendly.

Putting the function and macro descriptors in the code is popular because it keeps the docs close to
the code and makes it more likely that the two are kept in sync.

Doxygen simply automates the process of making it accessible from the Quickbook C++ reference
section.

Of course the quality of the Doxygen comment descriptions is the key to making the docs really work
for the user.

(Too many people have been put off Doxygen because authors have thought that all they needed to do
was to feed the C++ code into Doxygen and the job was done.  This is quite wrong - the real task is
still to add comments to document the functions and macros etc).

I hope too that we can get the new Boost.Test fully accepted and working for all Boost libraries.

But I understand how difficult it is to make changes when every other library depends on Boost.Test
(or should do).

Would it help to create a 'Son of Boost.Test' so that each library author can try out the new
version without fear (and switch back if it doesn't work for them).

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow,
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB  UK
[phone]  07714330204
pbristow_at_[hidden]