On Jan 24, 2014, at 11:16 AM, Gennadiy Rozental
Alexander Lamaison
writes: I'm genuinely curious what aspects of Boost.Test, that Richard ommitted to document, you use. Maybe I'm far off the mark, but I doubt many people use the extra stuff that is basically an implementation detail.
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.
I'm a long-time user of Boost.Test (> 8 years). I personally have found the level of detail in its documentation very useful over those years. Sometimes one makes a usage mistake, especially when trying to do something complicated that is beyond what is described in the tutorial examples, and sometimes the errors one gets (either from the compiler or at runtime) are less than helpful. Despite that, I've never had to resort to looking at the Boost.Test source code to resolve such issues. That's not something I can say for a lot of the code I work with, including some other Boost libraries. So when I hear someone suggesting that there is too much detail in the Boost.Test documentation, and that some of it should be thrown away, I get very nervous. While I will certainly agree that the existing release documentation has some structural / organizational problems, that's an entirely different problem. [And one which no longer has much effect on me personally, since I've invested the time needed to know my way around in the current documentation.]