Boost logo

Boost Users :

From: Gennadiy E. Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-29 19:47:01

--- In Boost-Users_at_[hidden], "Duane Murphy" <duanemurphy_at_m...>
> --- At Fri, 29 Aug 2003 11:02:51 +0200, Anders Moe wrote:
> >Hi again and thanks for your reply.
> >
> >
> >If I understand you correctly you suggest using the ctor/dtor in
> >class-test-case to do the job of build_up/tear_down. I suppose
that would be
> >equivalent to setup/teardown. This works, ofcourse, because a C++
> >programmer can rely on the dtor being executed, unlike the Java
> Having worked some with CppUnit, I have wondered similarly.

Did you try to use Boost.Test? Any comparison?

> It's hard to
> judge when a particular "feature" is put in to work around
limitations or
> differences in the language. When I studied JUnit, I didnt fully
> the need for setUp and tearDown. This explaination makes some

Do you mean, that in C++ we do not need explicit teardown and buildup?

> The
> equivalent is simply member variables or something similar in C++.

I did not get this. An equivalent to what?

> ...Duane


Boost-users list run by williamkempf at, kalb at, bjorn.karlsson at, gregod at, wekempf at