unittests are really part of the build, not a special run

[Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d]

On 2015-04-01 21:25, Dicebot wrote:

> I 100% disagree. Having built-in unittest blocks have been a huge win
> for the language and greatly improved quality of library ecosystem.
> Value of standardization and availability is tremendous here.
>
> Only problem is that development of the feature has stopped half way and
> there are still small bits missing here and there. All your requested
> features can be implemented within existing unittest feature via custom
> runner - while still running tests properly with default one!

The the unittest block itself could have been easily implemented as a 
library solution, if we had the following features:

* Trailing delegate syntax
* Executable code at module scope

module bar;

unittest("foo bar")
{
}

Would be lowered to:

unittest("foo bar", {

});

These two features are useful for other things, like benchmarking:

benchmark
{
}

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg