On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 20:04:01 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2015-03-31 16:55, Meta wrote:
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);
}
I prefer a UDA accepting a string, this can contain spaces and
it's not limited to identifier names.
Limiting unittest names to legal identifiers will save a lot of
headache when we set our tools to actually use these names.
Matching a legal identifier in a text stream is much easier than
matching an arbitrary unicode string, even if that string is
escaped.
