std.unittests [updated] for review

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 01/30/2011 06:13 AM, Jens Mueller wrote:
> Masahiro Nakagawa wrote:
>>
>> I vote Andrei's suggestion, std.exception is better than new std.unittests.
>> I think testing module should provide more features(e.g. Mock, Stub...).
>> Your helpers help assert writing style but not help testing.
>> In addition, std.exception already defined similar functions.
>
> I do not like putting it in std.exception. Maybe the name std.unittest
> is also not good. I would propose std.assert if assert wasn't a keyword.
> When I use std.exception I want to handle situations that are part of
> the spec (i.e. exceptions) whereas Jonathan's module helps me writing
> asserts (that's most of the time unittests).
> Basically it helps me verifying behavior according to a spec. I want to
> keep the dichotomy of errors and exceptions. Putting both things in one
> module is rather strange to me. What are the arguments for putting it in
> std.exception? I find the size a rather weak argument. I thought about
> providing an assertDeath ones std.process is redone.
> And even though enforce and assert are mirroring each other they are
> used in different contexts. I would _not_ expect helpers for writing
> assertions (Assert_Error_) in a module named std.exception.
>
> Jens

assertThrows and its converse are a good fit for std.exception. Then 
we're left with a couple of concepts that don't deserve their own module 
and are difficult to fit elsewhere. I reckon that in a perfect world 
there would be a better match, but I don't cringe at the thought of 
std.exception holding them.

Andrei