CURL Wrapper: Congratulations Next up: std.serialize

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Sunday, January 01, 2012 15:35:00 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> 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.

If all we're talking about is named unit tests and running all of the unittest 
blocks within a module even if one fails, those aren't huge changes to the 
language. Both have been discussed before, and the only reason that the latter 
hasn't been implemented yet is that it requires changes to the compiler. So, I 
don't see any reason to make those a library solution. If we're talking 
something massively more complicated than that, then yes, a library solution 
starts making more sense. I also think that it then doesn't necessarily make 
sense to put it in the standard library.

If the issue is how the tests print out on failure, that could probably be 
done in the language as well, depending on what you were talking about 
changing. If you want to do something massively complicated, however, then 
you'd probably have to come up with a library solution, but again, I see no 
reason to have it in the standard library if you're doing anything fancy with 
how the test failures print out.

- Jonathan M Davis