Named unittests

[Idan Arye via Digitalmars-d]

I understand the preference to librarize as much as possible, but 
I don't think the desire to sacrifice every possible bit of 
convenience to avoid the tiniest changes to the language is 
always beneficial. I don't say that implementing everything 
inside the compiler is good either though, but in many cases some 
slight changes to the language can make the library solution so 
much more simple and elegant.

In this case, allowing to name a unittest should be a very simple 
language change that'll make any library implementation of the 
rest of the feature more elegant to use, simpler to implement, 
and more consistent with alternative library implementations.


Another argument in favor of language solution - sometimes the 
unittests take the better part of the compilation process, 
especially when the project is a heavily-templated library(Phobos 
is a prime example). When working on a bug discovered by a 
unittest, that means you either have to either build all 
unittests every time you want to check your changes, or copy the 
unittest code a `main` function and work on it there. If unittest 
names are part of the language, it could be possible to instruct 
the compiler to only build a single unittest, which will make the 
iterations much faster.