unittest "name" {}

[Bradley Chatha]

On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 20:05:38 UTC, max haughton wrote:
> That being said I am in favour of the language dictating that a 
> string in a UDA on a unittest has special meaning (i.e. is a 
> name or description)

Wouldn't that only really be useful if the compiler had better 
support for named unittests, e.g. `-test-filer=yada`, or 
`-test-output=pretty (similar to silly or something like that)`?

Or am I missing the point entirely here :D