Breaking changes in Visual C++ 2015

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 5/11/15 1:19 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2015-05-10 10:12, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>
>> Those are really the only ones that I've ever thought made sense, and in
>> several cases, the things that folks want are things that I very much
>> _don't_ want (e.g. continuing to execute a unittest block after an
>> assertion failure).
>
> I don't think most of us want that. What we (I) want is for _other_ unit
> test blocks to run after an assertion failure. I also believe all unit
> test blocks should be completely independent of each other.

Yah, that's reasonable. Should be configurable in some easy way. -- Andrei