Named unittests

[Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 14:45:49 Idan Arye via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> But unittests already have
> names(http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/b15e94000f15), so the only required
> change is to allow the user to specify that name. This should be
> much simpler than adding entirely new fields.

Exactly what I was thinking. If we just made

unittest myTest
{
}

or

unittest(myTest)
{
}

legal, then the unit test function would then be named myTest instead of
whatever it's already named right now. It's a lot less ugly than using
attirbutes, and it fits really well into what we already have. Certainly,
it seems like a very straightforward and simple solution to the problem.

- Jonathan M Davis