On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:18 AM, John Maddock <boost.regex@virgin.net> wrote:
I don't know what to do about this. Because of the lack of redundancy (i.e. tests and documentation), it's hard to tell whether this library is correct or even to define what "correct" should mean. It seems like, as long as the code is incompletely / incorrectly documented and tested, it's just someone's personal coding project that we happen to keep shipping with Boost, and not really a library for general use. This situation reflects poorly on Boost as a whole and the fact that it centers around a _testing_ library, which is concerned with robustness... well, let's just say that the irony isn't lost on me.
Just one other data point: major updates to Boost.Test have broken my stuff on more than one occation (actually it feels like *every* time there's been an update, but that's probably an exageration).
As a result for the multiprecision library I decided not to use it, and wrote my own extensions to the lightweight test framework in /boost/detail/ that emulate (nearly) all the BOOST_CHECK* macros. It's not ideal, but at least I know it's stable and lightweight.
I use LightweightTest often instead of Boost.Test (also because LightweightTest is hear-only and compiles faster). It'd be nice to reconcile these two libs--but that's even more work... --Lorenzo