Let's bikeshed std.experimental.testing assertions/checks/whatchamacallits

[Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 30 June 2015 at 12:42:40 UTC, Sebastiaan Koppe wrote:
> On Tuesday, 30 June 2015 at 08:06:37 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
>> [...]
>
>
> Much rather prefer the composable ones over the `shouldEquals`, 
> simply for readability and easy extending.
>
> These days I am leaning towards BDD, but everybody has his 
> favorite. Maybe just providing the low-level details in 
> std.testing would enough; e.g. a test runner, UDA's and 
> assertions.
>
> Then everyone can write his on version of given().when().then() 
> on top of it. Or simply make a pull-request for std.testing.bdd

Yeah, I'm starting to think it might be better to delete 
`should.d` from my current PR, try to get the rest approved then 
work on where the community wants the fancy assertions to go. 
It's a shame though because I think it's a massively important 
piece of the whole thing. It's a night and day difference when a 
test fails.

Atila