Parallel execution of unittests

[monarch_dodra via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 30 April 2014 at 15:54:42 UTC, bearophile wrote:
>> We've resisted named unittests but I think there's enough
>> evidence to make the change.
>
> Yes, the optional name for unittests is an improvement:
>
> unittest {}
> unittest foo {}
>
> I am very glad your coworker find such usability problems :-)

If we do "name" the unittests, then can we name them with 
strings? No need to polute namespace with ugly symbols. Also:

//----
unittest "Sort: Non-Lvalue RA range" { ... }
//----
vs
//----
unittest SortNonLvalueRARange { ... }
//----