Bjørn Roald
As far as the documentation, I find it hard to understand why the various views on the Library that Richards documentation and the original documentation represent could not be integrated somehow to a better total. However if the attitude is that we have new docs, get rid of the old. Anybody see a pattern here? I have very little understanding of how that should work to the better of Boost.
A lot of the old documentation is not useful for Boost.Test users, and it swaps the bits that are useful. For example, the first two chapters are about the execution monitor and the program execution monitor, two details that the Boost.Test users never need to know about. Users have to read to Part IV before they find out how to use the library in the recommended manner. Once you cut it down to size, you would result in what Richard has written, albeit, less clearly worded. That's why combining the two would not be better: a major benefit of Richard's is the _absence_ of documentation. Alex -- Swish - Easy SFTP for Windows Explorer (http://www.swish-sftp.org)