std.unittests [updated] for review

[SHOO]

(2011/01/24 23:34), Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> In case you didn't know, I have a set of unit test helper functions which have
> been being reviewed for possible inclusion in phobos. Here's an update.
>
> Most recent code: http://is.gd/F1OHat
>
> Okay. I took the previous suggestions into consideration and adjusted the code a
> bit more. However, most of the changes are to the documentation (though there
> are some changes to the code). Some of the code duplication was removed, and the
> way that some of the assertPred functions' errors are formatted has been altered
> so that values line up vertically, making them easier to compare. The big change
> is the docs though. There's now a fake version of assertPred at the top with an
> overall description for assertPred followed by the individual versions with as
> little documentation as seemed appropriate while still getting all of the
> necessary information across. A couple of the functions still have irritatingly
> long example sections, but anything less wouldn't get the functionality across.
>
> In any case. Here's the updated code. Review away. Andrei set the vote deadline
> for February 7th, at which point, if it passes majority vote, then it will go
> into Phobos. The number of functions is small enough now (thanks to having
> consolidated most of them into the fantastically versatile assertPred) that it
> looks like it will likely go in std.exception if the vote passes rather than
> becoming a new module. So, the std.unittests title has now become a bit of a
> misnomer, but that's what I've been calling it, so it seemed appropriate to
> continue to label it that way in the thread's title.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

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.