On 2 Jun 2015 at 22:02, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
Not to bead the dead horse, but I'll continue to object to any unqualified statements about this misconception that this header is any more lightweight than Boost.Test.
As you can see Boost.Test version is at least as simple. On majority of modern hardware it takes as much time to build. And I am not even going to list all the other advantages (better log and report and so on) Boost.Test version has.
I read him as meaning Boost.Test is heavy on build times, which it is when in header only mode which is the default. If header only is disabled, I found the effect on build times very reasonable for the power of the library's facilities. I personally wish header only were default off in Boost.Test. Has any work been done on build time for Boost.Test v3? Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/