From: BjÃ¸rn 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 BjÃ¸rn Roald. Although you did claim some
> benefits to standardization, which I replied to.
Well, I donât 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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk