Re: Named unittests

[Meta via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 30 March 2015 at 21:58:13 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
I'd prefer putting alternative test runner into Phobos instead 
which will support `@name("Something") unittest { }`

Aren't unittest blocks just special functions? If that's the 
case, there should be no problem being able to give them names. 
It seems to me that it would entail the lifting of a restriction 
rather than a real language change.

Before:
unittest
{
    assert(1 == 1);
}

After:
unittest checkBasicLaw
{
    assert(1 == 1);
}