Review: A new stab at a potential std.unittests

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2010-11-21 17:20, Lutger Blijdestijn wrote:
> 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);

There's also the operator overload abuse which overloads opIn:

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

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg