Breaking changes in Visual C++ 2015

[Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 11 May 2015 at 08:18:54 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2015-05-10 10:12, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>
>> Those are really the only ones that I've ever thought made 
>> sense, and in
>> several cases, the things that folks want are things that I 
>> very much
>> _don't_ want (e.g. continuing to execute a unittest block 
>> after an
>> assertion failure).
>
> I don't think most of us want that. What we (I) want is for 
> _other_ unit test blocks to run after an assertion failure. I 
> also believe all unit test blocks should be completely 
> independent of each other.

Well, for some of the discussions on parallelized unit tests, 
that would be required, and it's certainly good practice in 
general, but there's nothing currently stopping folks from 
writing unittest blocks which rely on what occurred in previous 
unit test blocks, and there are rare circumstances where it makes 
sense.

Hopefully, we can get to the point that druntime is able to run 
tests in parallel and then we can use attributes to mark 
parallelizable unittest blocks to control it.

- Jonathan M Davis