Time for Phobos CTFE-ability unittests...right? RIGHT?

[bcs]

== Quote from Brad Roberts (braddr at puremagic.com)'s article
> On 7/12/2011 7:14 PM, bcs wrote:
> > == Quote from Adam D. Ruppe (destructionator at gmail.com)'s article
> >> I'd like to point out that *normal code* in Phobos is losing
> >> functionality far too often too, like replace() no longer working
> >> on immutable strings as of the last release.
> >> Generalized templates are great, but not at the cost of existing
> >> functionality!
> >
> > The answer to both problems is to have a test suit that is very
easy
> > for the average user to add code to that's run along with the
current auto-tester. What I'm thinking of is somthing like codepad.org
where
> > anyone can submit a code sample and where "interested parties" get
informed when the results for them change. With that in place, when
> > some one hits a regression it can be added to the (or a)
regression
> > suit with just a few clicks. With a bit more work, you could even
let
> > people "go back in time" and show that a test case user to run.
> >
> > Heck, I was looking into building exactly that a few months back
but
> > real life got in the way.
> Why separate at all?  Add tests to phobos directly like any other
unit test.

Because that requires commit privileges, having git installed and
about a dozen other things. I would like to be able to past some code
into a web page, tweak it till it shows what I want and post a URL.

As for moving stuff from there into phobos; well that might work for
selected cases, but for the system I'm thinking of you may end up with
a selection of "interesting" cases (ones the devs care about) that's
several times the size of phobos and a corpus of "active" test (ones
that someone cares about) an order of magnitude larger than that. As
long as the search and monitor tools to handle it are done well, the
more test the better I say.