std.unittests for (final?) review

[bearophile]

Jonathan M Davis:

> While improvements can be 
> made to how unit tests work in D, I believe that that should be addressed by 
> actually making those improvements to the core language as opposed to using a 
> module in Phobos to change things. You shouldn't _need_ std.unittests to write 
> unit testing code.

I think it's wrong to design a built-in unit test system able to do most of the things a real unit test system is expected to work, because it's a lot of stuff and because 10-15 years from now the best design for an unit test system may be different, and there are different ways to create tests. So I prefer the built-in unit test features to allow the creation of a good standard library unit test system based on the built-in one, working as an extension. In little programs you are free to use the built-in one.

What basic unit testing features do you think are better to become built-in? (Unit test names?)

Bye,
bearophile