Parallel execution of unittests

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 4/30/14, 11:53 AM, monarch_dodra wrote:
> On Wednesday, 30 April 2014 at 15:54:42 UTC, bearophile wrote:
>>> We've resisted named unittests but I think there's enough
>>> evidence to make the change.
>>
>> Yes, the optional name for unittests is an improvement:
>>
>> unittest {}
>> unittest foo {}
>>
>> I am very glad your coworker find such usability problems :-)
>
> If we do "name" the unittests, then can we name them with strings? No
> need to polute namespace with ugly symbols. Also:
>
> //----
> unittest "Sort: Non-Lvalue RA range" { ... }
> //----
> vs
> //----
> unittest SortNonLvalueRARange { ... }
> //----

I'd argue for regular identifiers instead of strings - they can be seen 
in stack traces, accessed with __FUNCTION__ etc. -- Andrei