On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 05:12:09 -0400, Jacob Carlborg <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2013-06-14 10:58, bearophile wrote:
So I suggested to offer the tools, but not a complete built-in solution.
I agree. You can get quite far with what we have now and library
support. Perhaps we could have a couple of different implementations in
druntime that we can choose from.
With @UDAs, we have a lot of unrealized power for unit tests.
I have asked for ModuleInfo to contain an rtInfo member [1], like TypeInfo
does. With that, and possibly splitting the unit tests into individual
functions (if not done already, I don't know), you have all you need to
completely re-design the unit testing framework. It can even be runtime
selectable.
-Steve
[1] http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10023
