Ah, simple solution to unittests inside templates

[Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d]

On 18.09.2016 22:52, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Sunday, September 18, 2016 13:10:36 Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d
> wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 18, 2016 08:02:47 Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
>> wrote:
>>> On 9/17/16 5:23 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>>>> I think at some point someone suggested we could implement explicit
>>>
>>>> support for such unittests via `static unittest`:
>>> That suggests the unittest shall be evaluated during compilation. --
>>> Andrei
>>
>> How so? At this point, static as a keyword pretty much never means that
>> something is compile-time specific.
>
> Actually, static does mean compile-time in the case of static assert,  so
> there is at least once case where it does, but most uses of static mean
> something else, and you have to know the context to know what the static
> keyword means. I selected static, because this use case fit reasonably well
> with how it was used with constructors, and it didn't require a new keyword
> or attribute.

Currently:

- static in front of a statement is a declaration running the statement 
at compile time in an appropriate sense.

- static in front of a declaration means that the declaration does not 
use a context pointer.

static unittest does not fit this pattern.


> But the word static itself isn't the important part. It's the
> feature, and something else could be used.

Yup.