| -----Original Message----- | From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org | [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Gennadiy Rozental | Sent: 30 January 2006 15:49 | To: boost@lists.boost.org | Subject: Re: [boost] Boost test tools using static library - | operatornewlinkproblem | | > By The Way, before we get too far into doc updates, is | there a really good | > reason why unit test framework and test tools are separate | libraries? | > They | | Test Tools isn't a separate library. Just a separate component of | Boost.Test. | | > appear to be the same apart from one extra file. Would it | not reduce | > confusion/compile time... to just have ONE library file. | > | > I'm still not sure I understand when to use either a test_suite | > unit_unit_test_suite, or int test_main. | | You probable means the Unit Test Framework vs. the Test | Execution Monitor. | The later is just single test cases version if first one. To | be completely | frank with you I do not see real need for the Test Execution | Monitor now. | It's just as easy to write BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(test_main). But from | historical reason I would keep it for now. I think you should think about at least deprecating it, and taking it out of the new documentation (relegating it to a 'historial' annex out of the main product description). I think it seriously confuses the whole business. When I started, I almost tripped at the first hurdle because I didn't know what I wanted. I fear others won't have been sold by your excellent 'Today I'm going to start testing as I write, flossing my teeth ..." article. There is also additional confusion with minimal test. Is it now looking so simple that we don't need that (documented) either? Paul -- Paul A Bristow Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB Phone and SMS text +44 1539 561830, Mobile and SMS text +44 7714 330204 mailto: pbristow@hetp.u-net.com http://www.hetp.u-net.com/index.html http://www.hetp.u-net.com/Paul%20A%20Bristow%20info.html