Michel Fortin wrote:
But of course, that's probably more work to do in the compiler.
Yes, but it's not hard. For me, the issue is making things for the user more complicated. D is already a very large language, and adding more and more stuff like this makes it larger, buggier, and less approachable. For example, nothing stands out to say what "unittest assert" does vs "assert". I'd have to continuously recheck the manual. One thing I like about the current unittest setup is how utterly trivial it is to use effectively. Is it really a good idea to have so much customizable behavior wedded into the grammar, whereas it can be achieved using existing D constructs (albeit with a little more typing)? I think the default behavior should be the simplest, "git 'er done" that covers 90% of the usage needs. The other 10% can be done with conventional D constructs. _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
