Utah Valley University teaches D (using TDPL)

[Lutger Blijdestijn]

bearophile wrote:

> Jonathan M Davis:
> 
>> Most of the rest (if not all of it) could indeed be done in a library.
> 
> I am not sure it could be done nicely too :-)
> 
> 
>> Right now
>> unit tests follow the unix convention of saying nothing on success,
> 
> That's an usability failure. Humans expect feedback, because you can't
> tell apart "unittests run and succeed" from "unittests not even run". That
> Unix convention is bad here. And Unix commands sometimes have a -v
> (verbose) command that gives feedback, while D unittests don't have this
> option.

Actually the unix convention is to give exit code 0 as an indicator of 
success, so there is feedback. It is very usable for scripting. But with the 
change Sean suggested - and I assume an extension point in druntime - there 
would be enough for a more human friendly tool to be built on top of the 
current D unittesting system.
  
>> particularly when it's not all that hard
>> to add code yourself which prints out success if you really want it to.
> 
> It's also not hard to define global functions, wrapped in a
> version(unittest){}, to replace the need of the unittest keyword (unittest
> becomes a version ID).
> 
> Bye,
> bearophile