on Tue Sep 18 2012, Jamie Allsop <ja11sop-AT-yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 17/09/12 15:40, Dave Abrahams wrote:
Hi All,
I was just going through Boost.Test to try to figure out how to teach it, and while it looks to have substantial value, it is also in quite a
mess. It contains loads of features that are exercised in the examples/ directory but neither included in any of the tests nor documented. There are facilities for command-line argument parsing! There are "decorators" that turn on/off features for test cases. There is support for mock objects! These are cool and sometimes necessary features, but who knew? The third tutorial page (http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_51_0/libs/test/doc/html/tutorials/new-year-r...) has a glaring typo in the code examples: "BOOST_AUTO_EST_CASE". There's no reference manual at all. There are nearly-identical files in the examples/ directory called "est_example1.cpp" and "test_example1.cpp" (Did the "t" key on someone's keyboard break?) I could go on, but where would I stop?
Yes I agree there are some documentation issues but addressing these is I am sure a much lesser effort than the following suggestions made.
Really? Which ones in particular do you think would be harder than fixing Boost.Test's documentation, which has been in essentially this state for years without substantial improvement?
As a straw man, I'll make this suggestion:
- Boost.Test is officially deprecated in the next release
I cannot agree this is the correct approach - I'd rather we all put effort into tidying up the docs and helping Gennadiy out. I'm sure he'd be receptive to anything that helps make this important library better.
If "we all" doesn't have to include me, I'm all for it. I personally have too many other projects to work on. Rescue is the preferred option if it's possible. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing Software Development Training http://www.boostpro.com Clang/LLVM/EDG Compilers C++ Boost