Re: Named unittests

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 3/31/15 7:55 AM, Meta wrote:

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);
}

That's what I had in mind, too. -- Andrei