Masahiro Nakagawa wrote: > > I vote Andrei's suggestion, std.exception is better than new std.unittests. > I think testing module should provide more features(e.g. Mock, Stub...). > Your helpers help assert writing style but not help testing. > In addition, std.exception already defined similar functions.
I do not like putting it in std.exception. Maybe the name std.unittest is also not good. I would propose std.assert if assert wasn't a keyword. When I use std.exception I want to handle situations that are part of the spec (i.e. exceptions) whereas Jonathan's module helps me writing asserts (that's most of the time unittests). Basically it helps me verifying behavior according to a spec. I want to keep the dichotomy of errors and exceptions. Putting both things in one module is rather strange to me. What are the arguments for putting it in std.exception? I find the size a rather weak argument. I thought about providing an assertDeath ones std.process is redone. And even though enforce and assert are mirroring each other they are used in different contexts. I would _not_ expect helpers for writing assertions (Assert_Error_) in a module named std.exception. Jens
