std.unittests for (final?) review

[Jens Mueller]

Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
> Sorry for not commenting on earlier iterations of this module.  For the 
> most part, I think it looks pretty good, and I also think it will be 
> useful.  Often, I find myself writing stuff like
> 
>   assert (someVar == someVal,
>     text("Wrong value for someVar: ", someVar));
> 
> and assertEqual() will be nice to have for those cases. :)  I just have 
> some minor comments.
> 
> 1. I think assertExThrown() and assertExNotThrown() should be named 
> assertThrown() and assertNotThrown(), because they can intercept any 
> subclass of Throwable, not just Exception, and because you rarely throw 
> anything else, so it seems redundant.

I think this is a good renaming. assertThrown and assertNotThrown are
better names.

> 2. I think the name getMsg() is too non-specific.  I'd prefer if it was 
> renamed to throwableMsg(), thrownMsg(), or something similar.  The 
> function should also be moved upwards a bit so its documentation follows 
> that of the assert*Thrown() functions.  Then, the various functions will 
> be nicely grouped in the documentation -- all the exception handling 
> tests come first, followed by the value tests.

Right. getMsg() is a too general name. Of the given ones I like
thrownMsg() best because it's concise.

Jens