Review: A new stab at a potential std.unittests

[Lutger Blijdestijn]

Jacob Carlborg wrote:

> On 2010-11-21 01:23, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> On Saturday 20 November 2010 08:03:52 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>> Why don't you use delegates instead of string mixins? For example,
>>> assertExcThrown, could take a delegate which calls the function you want
>>> to test instead of a string that represents the call. The mixin want be
>>> needed as well. Am I missing something?
>>
>> Well, delegates wouldn't be a bad idea, but they're unwieldy too. Would
>> you rather write
>>
>> assertExcThrown!Exception((){func(param1, param2);});
>>
>> or
>>
>> mixin(assertExcThrown!(Exception, `func(param1, param2)`));
> 
> I would go with the delegate, but when you format the code like that it
> doesn't look any good (btw, no need for the extra pair of empty
> parentheses). I think this looks better:
> 
> assertExcThrown!Exception({
>      func(param1, param2);
> });
> 
> And BTW, D needs a better way to pass a delegates to a function,
> something like the syntax that can be used in Scala:
> 
> assertExcThrown!Exception {
>      func(param1, param2);
> }

This is possible, but too surprising:

assertExcThrown!Exception = {
    func(param1, param2);
};

with lazy:

assertExcThrown!Exception = func(param1, param2);