Re: [boost] What Should we do About Boost.Test?

Paul A. Bristow <pbristow <at> hetp.u-net.com> writes:

I'd like some changes (output layout is annoying),

What about it? And what changes?

I would prefer a Boost.Test2 that was much more lightweight and preferably header-only.

All these statements about "lightweight" makes me wonder: * What exactly in your opinion makes Boost.Test not "lightweight"? * What exactly is wrong with Boost.Test header only solution? * What exactly would you throw out to make it more lightweight?

I'm willing to help with documentation (having 'mastered' the Quickbook toolchain for Boost.Math etc) but I don't think that is really the main issue.

Will quickbook be able to produce the same output current boostbook files do? Gennadiy