Named unittests

[Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d]

On 3/30/15 5:58 PM, Dicebot wrote:
> I'd prefer putting alternative test runner into Phobos instead which
> will support `@name("Something") unittest { }`

Yes, this is one of the benefits I touted 2 years ago when I asked for 
module RTInfo -- we can use this information in the runtime to 
instrument how we run unit tests.

We still don't have module RTInfo.

And yes, then it can be a library solution. unittests are a language 
feature, but only in how they are compiled and linked. The runtime is 
fully responsible for how they are run. All we need is a way to tell the 
compiler how to describe them to the runtime.

-Steve