Re: [boost] Call for Review: Boost.Test documentation rewrite

Subject: Re: [boost] Call for Review: Boost.Test documentation rewrite
From: Bjorn Reese (breese_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-01-18 08:09:10

On 01/12/2014 10:19 PM, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:

>> PS  Boost.Test feels much more complicated than most users need.
>> So we might have a Boost.MiniTest too?
>
> I never really understood these claims, without any specific examples. I am
> obviously biased, but show me "simple" library and we can discuss it. Even
> "hidden" boost alternatives - they are not simpler from user standpoint,
> they require as much typing (if not more). They are "lighter" indeed from
> compiler standpoint, but there is a price you pay for this.

Here is an example (requires C++11 though)

   https://github.com/martinmoene/lest