Named unittests

[krzaq via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 21:24:20 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> I see no value in test names limited to valid identifiers. It 
> is only tiny bit more informative than `unittestXXX` we have 
> already. If we add names, please, let them be proper names that 
> are easy to read.

I'd rather have the name obey the same restrictions as normal 
function names and keep additional information in optional 
@description("...")