On 1/26/14 12:43 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 17:55:30 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
What do you think? Logistically it shouldn't be too hard to arrange
things to cater to this approach.
After reading other opinions, this is what I think:
1. unit tests should be built as a separate binary. So when you build
foo with -unittest, you get foo_unittest in addition to foo.
2. If you want to run unit tests, run foo_unittest. If you want simply
the program, run foo.
Makes sense, though we could massage the unittests into the executable.
I don't see a huge need for having unit tests run before the normal
program. But maybe we should add a switch to make that work.
Guess we'd need to keep things running as they do for backwards
compatibility.
Building and running it as part of compilation seems like an incorrect
function of the compiler. This is best left to an IDE/build script.
Also, building unit tests still needs to be opt-in. Some projects can
take a long time to build unit tests (dcollections takes about 20x
longer to compile unit tests, last time I checked), and a quick
compile-test-debug cycle is a key feature of D.
Yah it should be all nicely controllable by the build system.
Andrei
