Named unittests

[tcak via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 12:10:15 UTC, w0rp wrote:
> On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 11:39:02 UTC, tcak wrote:
>> On Monday, 30 March 2015 at 21:57:33 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
>> wrote:
>>> On 3/30/15 2:55 PM, Panke wrote:
>>>> I've implemented this in a library and I'm sure others have 
>>>> as well. Are
>>>> you sure, you want a language solution?
>>>
>>> With attributes? That might be palatable but only as a 
>>> standard solution. I'd want to add that to Phobos. -- Andrei
>>
>> The "unittest" is a language thing. Why would name support be 
>> put into library I don't get it.
>>
>> unittest{}  => Unnamed
>>
>> unittest!"Testing new classes" {}  => Named (Explained)
>
> Becaused adding language features takes longer than using a 
> library, and every single feature, no matter how seemingly 
> simple, will increase the number of langauge bugs and lead to 
> more odd things happening.

I can understand this, and I agree with you. But this is no 
different then ordinary businesses those do not care about 
quality of their products or customer service as long as they 
make profit. And as you know, we mostly swear at them due to this.