I noted, and was pleased, to see the lack of such a comparison – I fear it would be embarrassing 😉
But it is proving very difficult to replicate the whole testing structure catering with all the variants of compilers, platforms, chipsets …
So I don’t think we should even consider this as a replacement for current libraries.
Paul
From: Boost-users On Behalf Of Dominique Devienne via Boost-users
Sent: 22 November 2019 09:41
To: boost-users
Cc: Dominique Devienne
Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Interest in a C++20 Unit Testing Framework?
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 9:18 AM Richard Hodges via Boost-users mailto:boost-users@lists.boost.org > wrote:
It looks very interesting. The idea of not using macros is very appealing to me.
Indeed. What surprised me, given the announcement on the Boost ML, was the lack
of comparison to Boost's own Boost.Test library (and its other single-header lightweight one,
which AFAIK is not an official library, please correct me if I'm wrong). --DD
