On Friday, 16 March 2018 at 14:32:47 UTC, Dejan Lekic wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 March 2018 at 22:04:50 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
[...]
I guess it was me talking about it two days ago on IRC...
[...]
There are a bunch of alternative test runners on code.dlang.org.
Obviously I prefer mine:
h
On 3/16/18 10:32 AM, Dejan Lekic wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 March 2018 at 22:04:50 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 March 2018 at 21:22:01 UTC, Timothee Cour wrote:
would a PR for `dmd -unittest= (same syntax as -i)` be welcome?
so when this came up on irc earlier (was that you?) this
On Wednesday, 14 March 2018 at 22:04:50 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 March 2018 at 21:22:01 UTC, Timothee Cour
wrote:
would a PR for `dmd -unittest= (same syntax as -i)`
be welcome?
so when this came up on irc earlier (was that you?) this was
the first thought that came to my
On Friday, 16 March 2018 at 07:47:31 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
Am Thu, 15 Mar 2018 23:21:42 + schrieb Jonathan Marler:
On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 23:11:41 UTC, Johannes Pfau
wrote:
Am Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:22:01 -0700 schrieb Timothee Cour:
[...]
And then we'll have to add yet another
Am Thu, 15 Mar 2018 23:21:42 + schrieb Jonathan Marler:
> On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 23:11:41 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
>> Am Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:22:01 -0700 schrieb Timothee Cour:
>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> And then we'll have to add yet another "-import" switch for DLL
>> support. Now we have 3 s
On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 23:11:41 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
Am Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:22:01 -0700 schrieb Timothee Cour:
[...]
And then we'll have to add yet another "-import" switch for DLL
support. Now we have 3 switches doing essentially the same:
Telling the compiler which modules are
Am Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:22:01 -0700 schrieb Timothee Cour:
> would a PR for `dmd -unittest= (same syntax as -i)` be welcome?
> wouldn't that avoid all the complicatiosn with version(StdUnittest) ?
> eg use case:
>
> # compile with unittests just for package foo (excluding
On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 12:14:12 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 05:22:45 UTC, Seb wrote:
Hmm how would this solve the StdUnittest use case? I.e. that
templated phobos unittests and private unittest symbols are
compiled into the users unittests?
See also:
http
On Wednesday, 14 March 2018 at 21:22:01 UTC, Timothee Cour wrote:
would a PR for `dmd -unittest= (same syntax as -i)` be
welcome?
wouldn't that avoid all the complicatiosn with
version(StdUnittest) ?
eg use case:
# compile with unittests just for package foo (excluding
subpackage fo
On 3/14/18 5:22 PM, Timothee Cour wrote:
would a PR for `dmd -unittest= (same syntax as -i)` be welcome?
wouldn't that avoid all the complicatiosn with version(StdUnittest) ?
eg use case:
# compile with unittests just for package foo (excluding subpackage foo.bar)
dmd -unittest=foo -uni
On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 12:14:12 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 05:22:45 UTC, Seb wrote:
Hmm how would this solve the StdUnittest use case? I.e. that
templated phobos unittests and private unittest symbols are
compiled into the users unittests?
See also:
http
On Thursday, March 15, 2018 07:17:47 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:14:12PM +, Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> > On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 05:22:45 UTC, Seb wrote:
> > > Hmm how would this solve the StdUnittest use case? I.e. that
> > > templated
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:14:12PM +, Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 05:22:45 UTC, Seb wrote:
>
> > Hmm how would this solve the StdUnittest use case? I.e. that
> > templated phobos unittests and private unittest symbols are compiled
> > into the users
On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 05:22:45 UTC, Seb wrote:
Hmm how would this solve the StdUnittest use case? I.e. that
templated phobos unittests and private unittest symbols are
compiled into the users unittests?
See also:
https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/6202
https://github.com/dlang/phob
On Wednesday, 14 March 2018 at 21:22:01 UTC, Timothee Cour wrote:
would a PR for `dmd -unittest= (same syntax as -i)` be
welcome?
wouldn't that avoid all the complicatiosn with
version(StdUnittest) ?
eg use case:
# compile with unittests just for package foo (excluding
subpackage fo
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 01:08:11AM +, Jonathan Marler via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 14 March 2018 at 21:22:01 UTC, Timothee Cour wrote:
> > would a PR for `dmd -unittest= (same syntax as -i)` be
> > welcome? wouldn't that avoid all the complicatiosn with
>
On Wednesday, 14 March 2018 at 21:22:01 UTC, Timothee Cour wrote:
would a PR for `dmd -unittest= (same syntax as -i)` be
welcome?
wouldn't that avoid all the complicatiosn with
version(StdUnittest) ?
eg use case:
# compile with unittests just for package foo (excluding
subpackage fo
ote:
>>
>> would a PR for `dmd -unittest= (same syntax as -i)` be welcome?
>
>
> so when this came up on irc earlier (was that you?) this was the first
> thought that came to my mind. I'd support it, tho I'm no decision maker.
On Wednesday, 14 March 2018 at 21:22:01 UTC, Timothee Cour wrote:
would a PR for `dmd -unittest= (same syntax as -i)` be
welcome?
so when this came up on irc earlier (was that you?) this was the
first thought that came to my mind. I'd support it, tho I'm no
decision maker.
would a PR for `dmd -unittest= (same syntax as -i)` be welcome?
wouldn't that avoid all the complicatiosn with version(StdUnittest) ?
eg use case:
# compile with unittests just for package foo (excluding subpackage foo.bar)
dmd -unittest=foo -unittest=-foo.bar -i main.d
20 matches
Mail list logo
