External lib unittests: they're killin me!

[Timothee Cour]

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Nick Sabalausky <
SeeWebsiteToContactMe at semitwist.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 22 May 2013 10:06:46 -0700
> Timothee Cour <thelastmammoth at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > it's only module level granularity.
> >
> > I agree that a library solution is the way to go, however there needs
> > to be a way to have finer granularity, ie being able to call
> > individual unittests. I gave the reasons in the 2nd post in this
> > thread. Syntax would be: unittest(test_fun){...}
> > having a short syntax such as this will make people use it.
> >
> > digressing, I wish there would be a simple non-anonymous way to vote
> > for such features, to see whether most people agree/disagree. It's
> > easier than voting by email, which invariably gets lost in
> > digressions (as I'm doing here).
> >
>
> Bugzilla has a voting system <http://d.puremagic.com/issues/>. Every
> user has up to 10 votes to place on whatever tickets they want.
>
> I'm aware of that and used it. I find it limited (voting limits, no -1)
and harder to use than necessary. It should be a 1 click operation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20130522/aeb0925d/attachment.html>