[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
boost@lists.boost.org spake the secret code
These are not implementation details at all. The fact that you are not using them does not make them useless. There are some people (admetedly less then those who are suing UTF) who need these to be documented.
Specifics, please. Again the general statement is made without specifics.
For example? Which undocumented macros?
It's difficult to list them one by one because the existing documentation has no suitable index that clearly lists all the symbols that it explains.
Richards, version has some number of pages with Richards view on how one should be testing things, but these are just views for the most part. We might want to keep something like this in "suggestions" sections.
It's in the user guide. You make this statement as if what I wrote was somehow "just my opinion", when in fact it is the common practice in unit testing. Nothing I wrote is inconsistent or contrary to the advice in Kent Beck's "Test-Driven Development", Jeff Langr's "Modern C++ Programming with Test-Driven Development", Freeman & Pryce's "Growing Object-Oriented Software, Guided by Tests", Gerard Meszaros's "xUnit Test Patterns: Refactoring Test Code", and so-on. In other words, I documented the typical industry practice. I think this is important for people who are new to unit testing. They should work *with* the accepted norms before they develop enough skill and expertise to know *when* and *how* they should deviate from them.
In my opinion I have expressed desire to work with anyone on new documentation, who is willing and interested. This offer still stands.
Then you'll obviously be taking my pull request when I issue it soon. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline The Computer Graphics Museum http://computergraphicsmuseum.org The Terminals Wiki http://terminals.classiccmp.org Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com