Voting for std.experimental.testing

[Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d]

On 08/10/15 9:21 PM, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
> This is the voting thread for inclusion of std.experimental.testing into
> phobos.
>
> PR: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3207
> Dub: http://code.dlang.org/packages/unit-threaded
> Doc: See CyberShadow/DAutoTest for up-to-date documentation build
> Formal Review Thread:
> http://forum.dlang.org/post/stbdckpfsysjtppldmry@forum.dlang.org
> Previous Thread:
> http://forum.dlang.org/post/uzocokshugchescbawlj@forum.dlang.org
>
> Please respond to this post with a comment starting with a single
> "Yes"/"No" and optional explanation after that. Criteria you are
> expected to evaluate as part of "Yes":
>
> - is this functionality needed in Phobos
> - is basic design sound (some breaking changes are OK for
> std.experimental but not full redesign)
>
> As usual, anyone can vote, but opinions of Phobos developers hold more
> value.
>
> Voting ends in 2 weeks, on Oktober 22.

Yes, but:

There is no way that could conflict with serializers/vibe.d's 
definitions. Let alone ORM's.

+struct name
+{
+    string value;
+}

std/experimental/testing/gen_ut_main_mixin.d
Why is it not package(std.experimental.testing) and more importantly not 
called internal? There is nothing there which the user should be touching.

Alright seriously?
+    /**
+     * Generate green coloured output on POSIX systems
+     */
+    string green(in string msg) @safe pure const
+    {
+        return escCode(Color.green) ~ msg ~ escCode(Color.cancel);
+    }

Somebody fix please: https://github.com/robik/consoled
Irk I don't like it being done like this. I want it done right or not at 
all pretty much.

Further thought about UDA's especially those with high conflict 
potential. Perhaps they should instead be moved out into e.g. 
std.stdudas. That way it is not locked into e.g. testing while being 
reusable.