Parallel execution of unittests

[Jesse Phillips via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 30 April 2014 at 15:43:35 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> This brings up the issue of naming unittests. It's becoming 
> increasingly obvious that anonymous unittests don't quite scale

A message structured like this would be awesome.

     Unittest Failed foo.d:345 Providing null input throws 
exception

> Last but not least, virtually nobody I know runs unittests and 
> then main. This is quickly becoming an idiom:
>
> version(unittest) void main() {}
> else void main()
> {
>    ...
> }
>
> I think it's time to change that. We could do it the 
> non-backward-compatible way by redefining -unittest to instruct 
> the compiler to not run main. Or we could define another flag 
> such as -unittest-only and then deprecate the existing one.

I would like to see -unittest redefined.