statement unittest

[monkyyy]

On Saturday, 6 April 2024 at 06:33:07 UTC, Meta wrote:
> On Friday, 5 April 2024 at 17:34:43 UTC, monkyyy wrote:
>> On Friday, 5 April 2024 at 15:38:28 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 3/21/2024 12:39 PM, monkyyy wrote:
>>>> i.e. `unittest(1==1)` would compile
>>>
>>> It's an interesting idea, but it would close the door on ever 
>>> having arguments to unittest blocks.
>>
>> why?
>>
>> ```d
>> unittest identity(T)(T i){
>>   assert(i==i);
>> }
>> identity(1);
>> identity(13.37);
>> ```
>>
>> ```d
>> unittest(1==1,"math broke");
>> ```
>>
>> I dont think unittest syntax is constrained much
>
> Instead why not just allow assert to be a top-level statement?

I dont see a meaningful difference, if it was top level it would 
probably need a dummy context and a way to be run which will 
probably come from it acting like a unittest