On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 19:25:26 -0500, Jonathan M Davis
<[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
Hi Jonathan.
I recently came across to this bug report you did about adding more
comprehensive unit testing functions:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4653
The thing is, I did something similar to unit test my Boost date time
library. I have a module with a few unit testing methods, similar in name
to the JUnit library:
http://bitbucket.org/gomez/yao-library/src/tip/src/yao/unittesting/assertions.d
Unfortunately, my asserEquals function is almost the same as yours. I just
wanted to let you know that I didn't stole from your module. :) However,
if you think that is too similar, I can give you some attribution. I just
don't want another licencing issue like the Tango affair.
By the way, I have completed, some days ago, the time module from the
Boost datetime library port. The only missing component is LocalDate and
all the TimeZone paraphernalia:
http://bitbucket.org/gomez/yao-library/src/tip/src/yao/datetime/core.d
http://bitbucket.org/gomez/yao-library/src/tip/src/yao/datetime/date.d
http://bitbucket.org/gomez/yao-library/src/tip/src/yao/datetime/time.d
The yao.datetime.time module lacks unittesting and documentation, but I'm
working on that.
--
Yao G.
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
