Hack to name unit tests?

[Dan]

Robert Fraser Wrote:

> I'm creating a Flectioned-based way to run unit tests individually 
> (it'll be hooked into a front-end, so you can run test suites, repeat 
> only failed tests after a code change, etc.)

I would have recommended you approach Walter and his team (whomever they may be nowadays) with the idea.
 
> Ideally, it'd be as easy for the user as something like:
> 
> unittest
> {
>     assert(":testName:");
>     // Rest of test goes here...
> }

I'd like to see:

unittest testName
{
  // rest of text
}

I'd then like to be able to specifically execute only specific unit test(s) so that for instance I can debug the relationship between my x and y modules without triggering off a test of the whole freakin' alphabet.

I would then like an improvement of unittests so that one can do more than merely assert().  Complete self-examination code should be possible - which means being able to examine program flow and trace variables.  This would ultimately lead to *being able to* generate proofs on the correctness of the code.

Someone could then just write a library.