From: Jesse Manning (manning.jesse_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-06-10 16:32:46
Well most of the unit test frameworks are of the binary form I think. Any
testing library is fine with me, I just mentioned my personal preference.
It may be more convenient to use the Boost.Test library since it is already
part of the boost distributable, I just found it a little cumbersome to
use. In the end it really doesn't matter which library is chosen, I think
any of the frameworks would be an improvement over having test code written
in all different formats.
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Nico Galoppo <ngaloppo_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Jesse Manning <manning.jesse_at_[hidden]>
> > One good way to make sure this is the case is
> > to agree on a unit testing framework to use for test implementation. My
> > personal preference for a unit test framework is UnitTest++, but I
> > boost itself has a testing framework that might be more convenient to
> > I have included a link to an article giving a good detailed
> > of different unit test frameworks.
> Given that ublas is a boost library, is there any good reason not to
> use the boost unit test library to do this? The one good reason that I
> can think of in favor of the boost unit test library, is that it saves
> us from installing yet another library.
> The disadvantage is that the boost unit test library is a binary
> library, not header-only.
> Nico Galoppo :: http://www.ngaloppo.org
> ublas mailing list