> My tests are already arranged in a way that 'test/minimal.hpp' offers too > little functionality while a whole test framework, such as > test_execution_monitor or unit_test_framework requires me link or > include too many translation units.
Well currently Boost.Test propose three configuration: 1. Minimal 2. Full linked 3. Full included Does not any one of them fit for you? What are the issues? What set of features you are looking for? > As a result, I don't want to use the Test > Library (but we could discuss this, because I might be biased by its > perceived complexity) I still hope to satisfy your requests for new features and explain everything that seems complex. > A quick search for BOOST_NO_STRINGSTREAM reveals that there is a sort > of 'idiom' which is extensively used -by hand- among many unit tests > (i.e, including the appropriate header and dealing later with either > ostrstream or ostringstream). > I also found that this idiom is very well captured by the Test Library > under the form of the class 'wrapstrstream', which comes exactly as > handy as most of the unit tests I've seen need it. You may nor remark it but this class change the interface a little right after 1.29 came out to implement different fix for the issue with copy constructor. > Therefore, is it possible to factor out this class so it can be used > standalone? > Say, as /utility/wrapstrstream.hpp. > Gennaidy, what do you think? > TIA, > Fernando Cacciola Well, if there is an interest in reuse of this class I do not see the reason why not. BTW at very end of 1.29 I added nullstream.hpp into details section of Boost.Test (borrowed and reworked a bit from Daryle Walker more_io). It also belongs somewhere in utility. Gennadiy. P.S. Sorry it took me so long to answer. I just was overloaded at the work and with serialization review. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost