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

[Ary Borenszweig via Digitalmars-d]

On 4/2/15 3:32 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2015-04-01 21:28, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>
>> No, it's actually much simpler but less powerful. This is because the
>> language is not as dynamic as Ruby. But we'd like to keep things as
>> simple as possible.
>
> Can't you implement that using macros?

We can. But then it becomes harder to understand what's going on. In 
RSpec I don't quite understand what's going on really, and I like a bit 
of magic but not too much of it.

In fact with macros it's not that simple because you need to remember
the context where you are defining stuff, so that might need adding that
capabilities to macros, which will complicate the language.

>
>> But right now you get these things:
>
> This sounds all great. But lowering groups and examples to classes and
> methods takes it to the next level.

Somebody also started writing a minitest clone: 
https://github.com/ysbaddaden/minitest.cr . Implementing a DSL on top of 
that using regular code or macros should be possible. But right now the 
features we have are enough.