On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 20:18:41 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 3/31/15 1:04 PM, 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.
I used to think the same, but then I figured a bit of structure
might be preferable. -- Andrei
I see no value in test names limited to valid identifiers. It is
only tiny bit more informative than `unittestXXX` we have
already. If we add names, please, let them be proper names that
are easy to read.
