On 2011-12-31 22:01, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday, December 31, 2011 16:04:12 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
It would be possible to implement named unit tests only in library code.
It would not have as nice syntax as if it was implemented in the
language but still possible.
In Ruby on Rails I run single unit tests all the time. Why would I run
all the unit tests, which can take five minutes, when I just can run one
unit test and it takes just one second?
When your doing test/behavior driven development (T/BDD) it's certainly
nice to be able to run single unit tests, because you run it all the time.
Yes. I agree that it would be nice, but for it to be done at all cleanly, the
language, compiler, and druntime need to be improved to make it possible.
However, at least syntactically, such changes should be completely backwards
compatible, so they can be added at a future date. Regardless, I don't think
that it's a problem that Phobos should be trying to solve.
- Jonathan M Davis
Ok, if you would rather have all this in the language I would say no do
that. But I know other people in the community that usually prefer to do
a library solution if possible.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
