Jonathan M Davis:
> Most of the rest (if not all of it) could indeed be done in a library.
I am not sure it could be done nicely too :-)
> Right now
> unit tests follow the unix convention of saying nothing on success,
That's an usability failure. Humans expect feedback, because you can't tell
apart "unittests run and succeed" from "unittests not even run". That Unix
convention is bad here. And Unix commands sometimes have a -v (verbose) command
that gives feedback, while D unittests don't have this option.
> particularly when it's not all that hard
> to add code yourself which prints out success if you really want it to.
It's also not hard to define global functions, wrapped in a
version(unittest){}, to replace the need of the unittest keyword (unittest
becomes a version ID).
Bye,
bearophile
