If I understand you correctly you suggest using the ctor/dtor in the 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 finalizer.
Anders.
Does that mean that my answer sattisfy your need in bringup/teardown functionality? Do you think it is going to be acceptable always?
Having given some thought to this during the weekend I have also realized a significant difference between ctor/dtor and setup/teardown, as was posted in another subthread of this thread, namely this : 1) the ctor(s) is called at test _setup_ time, while the setup(s) is called at test _runtime_ 2) the dtor(s) is called at test suite exit time, while the teardown(s) is called, again, at test runtime. This makes a real difference when, say, setup acquires a unique resource : boost_shared_ptr<Test1> (new Test1); // ctor called, open log file log.txt suite->add_test_case (<some Test1 method) suite->add_test_case (<some Test1 method) suite->add_test_case (<some Test1 method) boost_shared_ptr<Test1> (new Test2); // ctor called, open log file log.txt...FAILURE, already open suite->add_test_case (<some Test2 method) suite->add_test_case (<some Test2 method) suite->add_test_case (<some Test2 method) If instead log.txt was opened/closed in setup/teardown, the test methods called in between would work just fine. Anders Moe.