Boost logo

Boost :

From: Bjørn Roald (bjorn.roald_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-11-23 16:34:47

> On 23 Nov 2019, at 17:16, Vinnie Falco via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 8:00 AM Krzysztof Jusiak via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> I wasn't even trying to imply that [Boost].UT should go to the standard
> Yeah, you weren't. That was Bjørn Roald. Although you did claim some
> benefits to standardization, which I replied to.

Well, I don’t think I was proposing it for standardization. Not that I do not think it may be worth it down the road. But for now it is most likely far from being ready for that. What I am proposing is that it may be worth exploring this type of library for possible future standardization, and that is why I think it may be worth considering for Boost.

I will see if I can spend some more time with it, do some testing, and see if it affect my opinion. I agree with you Vinnie that it does not provide much functionally over alternatives. I think you only see it as syntactic sugar what I see as a potential path to something new in standard C++. Similar technicues may be useful not only unit test, but also for diagnostic logging or other tools.


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