Should unittests run as logical part of compilation?

[Jesse Phillips]

On Saturday, 25 January 2014 at 22:55:33 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> There's this simple realization that unittests could (should?) 
> be considered an intrinsic part of the build process. In order 
> for an executable to be worth running, it should pass the 
> regular semantic checks and also the unittests, which in a 
> sense are extended semantic checks that fall outside the 
> traditional charter of the compiler.
>
> In that view, asserts inside unittests should fail with the 
> same message format as regular compilation errors, i.e.
>
> ./modulename.d(103): Unittest failed: user-defined message

I already attempt to get unittests to fail at compile time by 
using static assert. I think running it during compilation would 
be a great change. Though cross compiling is a valid concern and 
should be addressed.

Many are use to the notion that unittest are separate from 
compilation, I think this is only due to familiarity. Other than 
the cross-compile issue, I believe moving it closer to the time 
of compilation is the correct direction, but it will get distaste 
from those familiar with JUnit/NUnit and other unittesting 
frameworks just as it currently does.