Named unittests

[w0rp via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 12:33:31 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> On 3/30/15 5:58 PM, Dicebot wrote:
>> I'd prefer putting alternative test runner into Phobos instead 
>> which
>> will support `@name("Something") unittest { }`
>
> Yes, this is one of the benefits I touted 2 years ago when I 
> asked for module RTInfo -- we can use this information in the 
> runtime to instrument how we run unit tests.
>
> We still don't have module RTInfo.
>
> And yes, then it can be a library solution. unittests are a 
> language feature, but only in how they are compiled and linked. 
> The runtime is fully responsible for how they are run. All we 
> need is a way to tell the compiler how to describe them to the 
> runtime.
>
> -Steve

ModuleInfo does actually exist, but it's not documented. I'm not 
sure if it's usable for this purpose though. Maybe?