On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 02:48:38PM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 21:09:14 +0100 > Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d <[email protected]> wrote: [...] > > In which case D is wrong to allow them in the unittest blocks and > > should introduce a new way of handling these tests. And even then > > all tests can and should be parallelized. If they cannot be then > > there is an inappropriate dependency. > > Why? Because Andrei suddenly proposed that we parallelize unittest > blocks? If I want to test a function, I'm going to put a unittest > block after it to test it. If that means accessing I/O, then it means > accessing I/O. If that means messing with mutable, global variables, > then that means messing with mutable, global variables. Why should I > have to put the tests elsewhere or make is that they don't run whenthe > -unttest flag is used just because they don't fall under your > definition of "unit" test? [...]
What about allowing pure marking on unittests, and those unittests that are marked pure will be parallelized, and those that aren't marked will be run serially? T -- Amateurs built the Ark; professionals built the Titanic.
