On Friday, 2 May 2014 at 14:59:50 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I need to make an amend to this because indeed it's more than 2
std deviations away from niceness: I have a long history of
ideas with a poor complexity/usefulness ratio, and I now wish
I'd received such a jolt. -- Andrei
I
On Wednesday, 30 April 2014 at 16:19:48 UTC, Byron wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 09:02:54 -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I think indeed a small number of unittests rely on order of
execution.
Maybe nested unittests?
unittest OrderTests {
// setup for all child tests?
unittest a {
}
On Thursday, 1 May 2014 at 17:57:05 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Well how complicated can we make it all? -- Andrei
As simple as possible, but no simpler :)
I've seen you favor this or that feature because it would make
unit testing easier and more accessible, and eschew features that
On Thursday, 1 May 2014 at 21:40:38 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I'll be blunt. What you say is technically sound (which is
probably why you believe it is notable)...
Well, I suppose that's not the MOST insulting brush-off I could
hope for, but it falls short of encouraging me to
