--- Comment #8 from Andrei Alexandrescu <> 2011-04-29 
13:07:43 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > > Um, have to be careful about two unittests on the same line!
> > Why?  Either combine the functions into one,
> Which introduces a complex special case.
> > or disallow that possibility
> > (shouldn't be too disruptive I would think).
> D has no similar dependencies on line endings, this would be a bizarre
> exception.

Yah. Probably a simple practical solution is to define a name for the unittest
depending on __FILE__ and __LINE__  for single unittests, and to add a count
only for several unittests on the same line. This makes the common case simple
and the exceedingly rare exception handled with panache. For example:

unittest { a(); }
unittest { b(); } unittest { c(); }

The first unittest is "unittest at foo/bar/baz.d:238", the second unittest is
"unittest #1 at foo/bar/baz.d:239", and the third is "unittest #2 at
foo/bar/baz.d:239". That takes care of everything.

BTW Walter I appreciate you giving a look to this. It's a simple addition that
would drastically improve the conviviality of unittests.

Configure issuemail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Reply via email to