std.unittests [updated] for review

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 2/1/11 9:21 AM, Don wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> On Sunday 30 January 2011 05:28:36 SHOO wrote:
>
>>> To be frank, I don't think that such a helper is necessary.
>>> I think these helpers will harm intuitive readability of unittest code.
>>> For unittest code, it is necessary to be able to understand easily even
>>> if without the document.
>>
>> Do you really find
>>
>> assertPred!"=="(min(5, 7), 5);
>>
>> to be all that harder to understand than
>>
>> assert(min(5, 7) == 5);
>
> I do. *Much* harder. Factor of two, at least.
> In absolute terms, not so much, because it was the original assert is
> very easy to understand. But the relative factor matters enormously.
> Much as comparing:
> a.add(b);
> a += b;
>
> And I think this is a very important issue.
>
>  >I don't see how these functions could be anything but an improvement.
>  > But even if they get into Phobos, you obviously don't have to use them.
>
> This is not true. Including them in Phobos gives a legitimacy to that
> style of programming. It's a role model.
>
> Including stuff like this could give D a reputation for lack of
> readability. My belief is that right now, the #1 risk for Phobos is that
> it becomes too clever and inaccessible.
>
> IMHO, something simple which has any appearance of being complicated,
> needs a VERY strong justification.

Does this count as a vote against the submission?

Andrei