On 2/26/13 3:51 PM, foobar wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 February 2013 at 10:59:41 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
I agree with all but small comment on unit tests : current approach
makes it really easy to start adding tests for projects that do not
have them and this is huge. So having "unittest" blocks themselves is
really a success feature. Tightly coupling handling of this blocks to
compiler is an issue though.
Again, this is a completely superfluous feature. D already has
annotations (took only several years to convince Walter to add them)
which are more flexible and much better suited for this.
@unittest // <- this is a unit-test function
void mySuperDuperTestFunction(...);
There is no benefit in having all those special case features in the
language which have all sorts of integration issues yet deny the
usefulness of a more general solution generally accepted in the
programming world, successfully used in many languages and thus also
familiar to programmers coming from those languages.
Agreed, but it does happen often that a language feature is later
superseded by a generalization thereof.
Andrei
