A proposal for better template constraint error reporting.

[Jonny Dee]

Am 26.10.11 19:16, schrieb Jonathan M Davis:
> On Wednesday, October 26, 2011 10:10 bearophile wrote:
>> Gor Gyolchanyan:
>>> The ddoc comments, preceding parts of template constraints would be
>>> used to specify why exactly did the template fail to instantiate, for
>>
>>> example:
>> Good. Is it possible to do the same thing with unittests?
>>
>> /// foo
>> unittest {
>> assert(false);
>> }
>>
>> ==>
>> foo unittest failed
>>
>>
>> But maybe this syntax is better:
>>
>> unittest(foo) {
>> assert(false);
>> }
>
> I'd definitely favor unittest(foo) or unittest("foo") for naming unittest
> blocks (and that's how it's been proposed previously). And since it would
> presumably actually affect the name of the function that the unittest block
> generates, I think that it makes more sense that way rather than making it a
> comment (it also takes up less vertical space).
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

I'd prefer this approach, too. For the following reason. I don't know if 
you know GoogleTest library [1] for C++. There you define unittests with 
symbols as names, too. And if you want to run your test suite you can 
filter the set of test cases to be executed by providing wildcard 
filters as command line parameters. It's really a nice feature. But OTOH 
having a more explanatory comment is also a nice thing. Maybe one could 
consider both approaches?

Jonny

[1] http://code.google.com/p/googletest/