
| -----Original Message----- | From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org | [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of David Abrahams | Sent: 01 February 2006 20:48 | To: boost@lists.boost.org | Subject: Re: [boost] [Release 1.34] Supported Compilers - another view | | Easier than BOOST_ASSERT? Well hardly more difficult - once you have the libraries built. | Yes. What do you get from those macros that's very useful beyond what | BOOST_ASSERT supplies? I really want to know. Some people I'll be | consulting with next week want to know about testing procedures for | C++, and if there's a reason to recommend Boost.Test, I'd like to do that. Floating-point tests are a really nasty with asserts. Despite the previously confusing documentation (better available Real Soon Now), Boost.Test is MUCH better - show exactly what the tests and values etc are.. I also like the documentation that you can get - a file that proves what tests you did, and when, and which passed - shows when things are improving. I HATE the way asserts that fail bring the whole business to a halt. Seeing which of a group of tests fail is a real help. I like it - a lot. Paul -- Paul A Bristow Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB Phone and SMS text +44 1539 561830, Mobile and SMS text +44 7714 330204 mailto: pbristow@hetp.u-net.com http://www.hetp.u-net.com/index.html http://www.hetp.u-net.com/Paul%20A%20Bristow%20info.html