Subject: Re: [boost] What Should we do About Boost.Test?
From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-09-27 16:56:05
Paul A. Bristow <pbristow <at> hetp.u-net.com> writes:
> I'd like some changes (output layout is annoying),
What about it? And what changes?
> I would prefer a Boost.Test2 that was much more lightweight
> and preferably header-only.
All these statements about "lightweight" makes me wonder:
* What exactly in your opinion makes Boost.Test not "lightweight"?
* What exactly is wrong with Boost.Test header only solution?
* What exactly would you throw out to make it more lightweight?
> I'm willing to help with documentation (having 'mastered'
> the Quickbook toolchain for Boost.Math
> etc) but I don't think that is really the main issue.
Will quickbook be able to produce the same output current boostbook files do?
Gennadiy