safe pure unittest

[H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 07:53:34AM -0700, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 03:03:14PM +0200, simendsjo via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> > On 08/13/2014 02:50 PM, Dicebot wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 13 August 2014 at 12:26:02 UTC, simendsjo wrote:
> > >> This is the first time I've seen attributes on unittests:
> > >> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/2349/files#diff-ba05e420ac1da65db044e79304d641b6R179
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Has this always been supported? I guess it's good practice to add
> > >> these on unittests too, but does people even know about this
> > >> feature? And are there any cons to doing this?
> > > 
> > > unittest block is effectively just a special function declaration
> > > so all function attributes are applicable and act in a similar
> > > way.
> > > 
> > > It is an extremely important idiom when you wan't to ensure
> > > specific properties of templated function that may be valid or not
> > > depending on template arguments. For example, function with output
> > > range may be @nogc or not depending if used output range type
> > > triggers GC. But you can mark with @nogc unittest that uses it
> > > with dummy output range to ensure that _nothing else_ allocated.
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > The unittest documentation notes that unittests are functions in one
> > of the sentences, but nothing regarding attributes (except for
> > private) is mentioned: http://dlang.org/unittest.html
> 
> A PR to fix this would be greatly welcomed. ;-)
[...]

Ninja'd: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/pull/685

;-)


T

-- 
Stop staring at me like that! It's offens... no, you'll hurt your eyes!