std.unittests for (final?) review

[Jens Mueller]

bearophile wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis:
> 
> > While improvements can be 
> > made to how unit tests work in D, I believe that that should be addressed by 
> > actually making those improvements to the core language as opposed to using a 
> > module in Phobos to change things. You shouldn't _need_ std.unittests to write 
> > unit testing code.
> 
> I think it's wrong to design a built-in unit test system able to do most of the things a real unit test system is expected to work, because it's a lot of stuff and because 10-15 years from now the best design for an unit test system may be different, and there are different ways to create tests. So I prefer the built-in unit test features to allow the creation of a good standard library unit test system based on the built-in one, working as an extension. In little programs you are free to use the built-in one.

I agree with bearophile. Unit testing can be implemented on top of the
language and shouldn't be put into it. Somehow I have the feeling that
too often one tries to extend the language even though the feature could
be implemented in a library. I like the basic built-in support for
unit testing in D but more advanced testing should be implemented in a
module ideally leading to something like GoogleTest for D. I think
unittest.d does a good step into that direction. More will be needed, if
there is consensus.

Jens