Named unittests

Xavier Bigand via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at
Tue Mar 31 14:05:46 PDT 2015

Le 31/03/2015 20:21, Andrei Alexandrescu a écrit :
> 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(, 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
It will be nice to have named unittest.

And better if IDEs will be able to retrieve those names, to allow replay 
by name, displaying results by names,...

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list