Kim Barrett <kab@irobot.com> writes:
At 1:57 AM -0500 11/7/05, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
Well, when people are just dipping their toes in the test library waters they are likely to start with minimal.hpp,
God, I hope not. The only reason this component exists is because some people here on the list, who were familiar with original testing library wanted something for backward compatibility. In fact for the new users I don't see almost any reasons to use it at all. Boost.Test provides better alternatives.
Quoting from the introduction to the documentation section for the Minimal Testing facility:
Minimal testing facility does not require linking with external components, so could be a component of choice for simple and quick testing needs.
Yes, that's exactly what I thought would lead people to reach for minimal.hpp as a way of getting started. Either minimal.hpp should be made to be useful for the most basic use cases, where an individual user will want to debug a problem that it finds, or you should do a much better job of discouraging people from using it. Personally, I think supporting --catch_system_errors=no in minimal.hpp is so trivial as to be not worthy of an argument, but if you really insist on making first-time users jump through hoops, minimal.hpp should be given a different name in the public docs (like backward_compatibility.hpp) -- you can just make that header #include minimal.hpp -- and you should do something to make it much less attractive, like for example, stating up front that it's no good for JIT debugging. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com