As boost testlib is extremely IDE unfriendly, as well as human
unfriendly with lots of macros for basic C++ functions (like methods!!)
this is better for me.
But the real reason is that its just unstable. I get double deletes
on some releases of boost and I'm missing plain features that all
other test frameworks have.
For instance a QCOMPARE shows what is expected vs what we got. Boost
just fails.
In QTestLib I can mark a test as "expect fail" an idea that boost
tried and failed (can easily create false positives).
John Galt
tomFlowee