Utah Valley University teaches D (using TDPL)

[Gide Nwawudu]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 10:54:50 -0800, Jonathan M Davis
<jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 16, 2010 07:53:01 Sean Kelly wrote:
>> bearophile Wrote:
>> > He also gives a quite useful unittest that the student implementation
>> > must pass, this is a good usage of unittests. The unit test ends like
>> > this:
>> > 
>> > ...
>> > 
>> >     writeln("unit test passed");
>> > 
>> > }
>> > 
>> > Indeed, a person needs feedback that the unittests have run (and have
>> > succeed), I have used similar things in my dlbs1 (but more refined).
>> > This kind of need for feedback is so natural that something like that
>> > will be better somehow done on default by D.
>> 
>> I'd like unit tests to be optionally named: unittest("name").  The rest
>> could then be done in library code.
>
>That would indeed be great. With that done, it could become possible to run unit 
>tests by name (though that would likely mean more changes for the compiler) in 
>an IDE or whatnot. There's at least one bug report suggesting it, IIRC, though I 
>think that it was suggested that they be named without the quotes. 
>unittest(name) should probably translate to something like unittest_name in 
>whatever scope it's in.
>
>In any case, it's a good enhancement request that hasn't come to fruition yet. 
>Most of the rest (if not all of it) could indeed be done in a library. Right now 
>unit tests follow the unix convention of saying nothing on success, which I 
>think is best for the current set up - particularly when it's not all that hard 
>to add code yourself which prints out success if you really want it to.
>
>- Jonathan M Davis

Already requested, see
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2749

Gide