std.experimental.testing PR review

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 27 June 2015 at 16:44:49 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> Your UFCS abuse is my UFCS awesomeness. It doesn't _make_ you 
> use UFCS though, nobody would stop you from writing 
> `shouldEqual(timesTwo(2), 4)` instead, which I think is nearly 
> as readable. "Nearly" because I prefer UFCS. The advantage of 
> using a word like "should" is that it enables UFCS, which 
> "test" doesn't. After that it's a question of code style 
> preferences whether or not you use it.

And disagreement about how idiomatic such style preferences 
should be is exactly the reason why I will vote "no".

Look at it this way : if this proposal will never get to Phobos, 
I won't lose anything. It does not have any really important 
utility I need in standard library. Main thing about this 
proposal is making certain testing style standard - and thus 
there is no practical reason to accept any compromises.