Possible solution for export : `unittest export`?

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 18:25:06 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 06:14:05PM +0000, deadalnix via 
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> A ton of code is not unitestable. GUI as a starter. Random 
>> number generator.  Very rare events handling outside the 
>> control of the program. Concurent code. Etc...
>
> That would explain why GUI apps tend to be buggy and 
> unreliable, and RNGs tend to have unintended biases.
>
> No, actually, GUIs should be written to be testable (e.g., 
> input should be abstracted via dependency injection so that GUI 
> interactions are scriptable, at least inside a unittest, with 
> expected final states).
>
> RNGs can be unittested for uniform distribution within certain 
> bounds. Unittest does not necessarily mean checking for 
> equality (even though that's the most common usage).

Some of this depends on whether you're talking about 
pseudo-random or 'true' random number generators.  With the 
former you can e.g. verify that particular seeds produce expected 
sequences, etc., so you can at least test equivalence of 
implementations.

Testing (true or pseudo) RNGs for desired statistical properties 
(not just distribution but also periodicity, etc.) is readily 
possible, it's just rather more costly than is desirable for 
unittests.