std.unittests/exception Update and Vote

[Don]

Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> Okay, the latest code and documentation is here: http://is.gd/HZQwNz
> 
> I've also made the changes in my github fork of Phobos here: 
> https://github.com/jmdavis/phobos . So, if this passes the vote, it's just a 
> pull request away from being in Phobos.
> 
> assertPred, assertThrown, assertNotThrown, and collectExceptionMsg have been 
> merged into std.exception and their documentation updated again. There are fewer 
> examples now, and hopefully it's more to everyone's liking, though the changes 
> aren't drastic. Hopefully, I didn't miss anything that needed changing.
> 
> Also, since collectExceptionMsg was catching Throwable and collectException was 
> catching Exception, I made them both templated on the type to catch with 
> Exception as the default. So, you can use both to catch any Throwable, but they 
> default to Exception, so no code should break as a result. I kept Exception in 
> their names with the idea that you really shouldn't be catching Throwable or 
> Errors except in exception circumstances, so collectException is more correct 
> for general use and its name doesn't encourage people to catch the wrong thing 
> (it also avoids having to create an alias for backwards compatability).
> 
> We're coming up on the time when the proposal has to be voted in or out (Feb 
> 7th). It looks like Don and/or Walter _may_ make it so that assert is improved 
> such that it does some of what assertPred does, printing much better error 
> messages, and if that's the case, assertPred will need to be reworked or tossed 
> entirely (but whether that happens depends on what they decide between now and 
> Feb 7th). So, unless Andrei has a problem with it, I'd ask that you vote for 
> assertPred separately from assertThrown, assertNotThrown, and 
> collectExceptionMsg. So, if it's decided that assert is going to be improved and 
> assertPred won't work as is, at least we can get assertThrown, assertNotThrown, 
> and collectExceptionMsg into Phobos (assuming that they pass the vote). If 
> assert is improved and assertPred doesn't make it in, and some portion of 
> assertPred's other capabilities should still be in Phobos, they can be reworked 
> in a future proposal (though if assert doesn't get improved, then they're in 
> assertPred as it is).
> 
> So, please make any last comments or suggestions on this proposal, and vote on 
> whether you think that assertPred should be in Phobos (assuming that assert 
> isn't going to be improved such that assertPred isn't necessary) and whether you 
> think that assertThrown, assertNotThrown, and collectExceptionMsg should get in 
> regardless of whether assertPred does.
> 
> - Jonathan M Davis

Yes for assertThrown and assertNotThrown. Ambivalent about 
collectExceptionMsg.
I strongly believe that assertPred should not be included. But I think 
it can be done properly. Please make a bugzilla request for the 
improvements to assert().