CURL Wrapper: Congratulations Next up: std.serialize

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2011-12-31 22:01, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Saturday, December 31, 2011 16:04:12 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> It would be possible to implement named unit tests only in library code.
>> It would not have as nice syntax as if it was implemented in the
>> language but still possible.
>>
>> In Ruby on Rails I run single unit tests all the time. Why would I run
>> all the unit tests, which can take five minutes, when I just can run one
>> unit test and it takes just one second?
>>
>> When your doing test/behavior driven development (T/BDD) it's certainly
>> nice to be able to run single unit tests, because you run it all the time.
>
> Yes. I agree that it would be nice, but for it to be done at all cleanly, the
> language, compiler, and druntime need to be improved to make it possible.
> However, at least syntactically, such changes should be completely backwards
> compatible, so they can be added at a future date. Regardless, I don't think
> that it's a problem that Phobos should be trying to solve.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Ok, if you would rather have all this in the language I would say no do 
that. But I know other people in the community that usually prefer to do 
a library solution if possible.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg