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. Perhaps something more akin to your message above should be in this introduction. Note that one of my co-workers also went down this minimal-testing rat hole, after I had extolled the capabilities of Boots.Test but before I'd written the brief "How we use Boost.Test" introduction for my co-workers (which basically says, "Use the auto unit test framework, unless you have a really good reason not to, and then think hard about that reason for a while first.").