Extending unittests [proposal] [Proof Of Concept]

[Jens Mueller]

Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2012-09-21 23:11, Jens Mueller wrote:
> 
> >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?
> 
> Oh, you mean like that. Sure, but that will only show up as a failed
> test. For example, in the Ruby world there are two different testing
> frameworks: Rspec and test-unit. Rspec makes not difference between
> a thrown exception or a failed test (assert). Test-unit on the other
> hand do make a difference of these scenarios. I'm leaning more
> towards the Rspec way of handling this.

What does it mean to make no distinction in RSpec?
Both should be reported. In D you just see either an AssertError or
SomeException.

Jens