Le 31/03/2015 20:21, Andrei Alexandrescu a écrit :
On 3/31/15 7:45 AM, Idan Arye wrote:
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.
Interesting point! -- Andrei
It will be nice to have named unittest.
And better if IDEs will be able to retrieve those names, to allow replay
by name, displaying results by names,...
