Extending unittests [proposal] [Proof Of Concept]

[Jens Mueller]

Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2012-09-21 20:01, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> 
> >I didn't think of setAssertHandler. My changes are perfectly compatible
> >with it.
> >IIRC setAssertHandler has the small downside that it's used for all
> >asserts, not only those used in unit tests? I'm not sure if that's a
> >drawback or actually useful.
> 
> That's no problem, there's a predefined version, "unittest", when
> you pass the -unittest flag to the compiler:
> 
> version (unittest)
>     setAssertHandler(myUnitTestSpecificAssertHandler);

But if you have an assert in some algorithm to ensure some invariant or
in a contract it will be handled by myUnitTestSpecificAssertHandler.
But I think that is not a drawback. Don't you want to no whenever an
assert is violated?

Jens