Named unittests

[Idan Arye via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 20:04:01 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2015-03-31 16:55, Meta wrote:
>
>> Aren't unittest blocks just special functions? If that's the 
>> case, there
>> should be no problem being able to give them names. It seems 
>> to me that
>> it would entail the lifting of a restriction rather than a 
>> real language
>> change.
>>
>> Before:
>> unittest
>> {
>>     assert(1 == 1);
>> }
>>
>> After:
>> unittest checkBasicLaw
>> {
>>     assert(1 == 1);
>> }
>
> I prefer a UDA accepting a string, this can contain spaces and 
> it's not limited to identifier names.

Limiting unittest names to legal identifiers will save a lot of 
headache when we set our tools to actually use these names. 
Matching a legal identifier in a text stream is much easier than 
matching an arbitrary unicode string, even if that string is 
escaped.