Hello! 2010/1/28 Joel Fielder <joel.fiel...@switchplane.com>: > Clark Gaebel wrote: >> That's the same one I just posted, but had a boost dependency so was >> "rejected" by the community. > Not by everyone :) Every project I've worked on in the last two years > has a boost dependency.
Most of projects I worked with didn't have boost dependency. Some of those who has - had problems with it and evaded boost as a plague - YMMV. UT++ core should use only standard C++ and platform specific code. > Was it the embedded gang that didn't want it? Are you from boost gang ? ;) I am far from embedded. > There was a separate > argument as well - "it's difficult to build boost" - I don't accept > that. We're catering for serious developers here! It's not that we can't it's because we don't want. I think this like discussion vim vs eclipse or emacs users. > And besides, it's not difficult. Giving that most of library is header only ... BTW, If i would have boost already in my sandbox I would rather use Boost Test which has (AFAIR) very similar feature set as UnitTest++. Z. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away. http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com _______________________________________________ unittest-cpp-devel mailing list unittest-cpp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/unittest-cpp-devel
