unittest "name" {}

[Bogdan]

On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 12:05:05 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 00:03:50 UTC, WebFreak001 
> wrote:
>> On Friday, 10 February 2023 at 22:24:54 UTC, Dennis wrote:
>>> On Friday, 10 February 2023 at 21:48:00 UTC, Steven 
>>> Schveighoffer wrote:
>>>> I personally am fine with the requirements to use a UDA.
>>>>
>>>> And I also prefer the simple "first string" method,
>>>
>>> My proposal is purely syntactic sugar, it's exactly the same 
>>> as adding a first string UDA.
>>
>> I like this idea, and I think as @("") has already become the 
>> de-facto standard across testing frameworks on DUB we can just 
>> make it behave like that and everyone will be happy without 
>> breaking changes + it's all quite an easy change for everyone.
>
> The reason I used a string UDA initially (and, probably why 
> silly does the same thing) is to avoid having to import a 
> symbol to use it there. It's the simplest thing that will work 
> and not "corrupt" production code.
>
> Don't get me started on version(unittest).


I think using @("") is some kind of a hack because if you use a 
documentation generator, you will have to also add a `///` 
comment to have a nice description of the example. But since 
there is already a way to explain what a unit test is doing, and 
I am referring to the `///` comment, why don't you just use that 
comment?

This is what I implemented in `trial`, and it works great. 
Currently, the code is parsed using `libdparse`, but I must admit 
that it would be great if there would be a trait that gives you 
the documentation comment of a symbol. I know there were 
discussions about this a few years ago, and it was decided not to 
have such a compiler feature.