On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 13:34:24 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 10:25:57 UTC, Idan Arye wrote:
I understand the preference to librarize as much as possible,
but I don't think the desire to sacrifice every possible bit
of convenience to avoid the tiniest changes to the language is
always beneficial. I don't say that implementing everything
inside the compiler is good either though, but in many cases
some slight changes to the language can make the library
solution so much more simple and elegant.
In this case, allowing to name a unittest should be a very
simple language change that'll make any library implementation
of the rest of the feature more elegant to use, simpler to
implement, and more consistent with alternative library
implementations.
It isn't simple at all. Name is just one of many meta-values
you commonly want to attach to unittest block. Some others:
description, dependency, parallelization, benchmark tag, I/O
indicator. It is simply impossible to foresee it all in a
language feature - but it is exactly kind of data UDA are
designed for. All we need is to enhance/fix the language to
actually make using of that information convenient.
But unittests already have
names(http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/b15e94000f15), so the only required
change is to allow the user to specify that name. This should be
much simpler than adding entirely new fields.
