Named unittests

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 3/31/15 7:45 AM, Idan Arye wrote:
> On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 13:34:24 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 10:25:57 UTC, Idan Arye wrote:
>>> I understand the preference to librarize as much as possible, but I
>>> don't think the desire to sacrifice every possible bit of convenience
>>> to avoid the tiniest changes to the language is always beneficial. I
>>> don't say that implementing everything inside the compiler is good
>>> either though, but in many cases some slight changes to the language
>>> can make the library solution so much more simple and elegant.
>>>
>>> In this case, allowing to name a unittest should be a very simple
>>> language change that'll make any library implementation of the rest
>>> of the feature more elegant to use, simpler to implement, and more
>>> consistent with alternative library implementations.
>>
>> It isn't simple at all. Name is just one of many meta-values you
>> commonly want to attach to unittest block. Some others: description,
>> dependency, parallelization, benchmark tag, I/O indicator. It is
>> simply impossible to foresee it all in a language feature - but it is
>> exactly kind of data UDA are designed for. All we need is to
>> enhance/fix the language to actually make using of that information
>> convenient.
>
> But unittests already have names(http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/b15e94000f15), so
> the only required change is to allow the user to specify that name. This
> should be much simpler than adding entirely new fields.

Interesting point! -- Andrei