On Wed, 12 May 2010 18:54:20 -0400, bearophile <bearophileh...@lycos.com>
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer:
class ArrayList(V)
{
V take() {...}
unittest
{
auto al = new ArrayList!uint;
...
That unit test is the test of just take().
[snip]
I don't have other ideas for you.
Right now, I'm doing fine with the static if for conditionally having unit
tests. I feel less strongly about having unit tests which test a function
regardless of implementation than I originally did. In order to unittest
a function, you will inevitably end up instantiating with certain types,
you can just use a static if to only build the unit tests when those types
are present, or you could do it the same way I originally did, and have
the unit tests run more than once.
Of course, it is odd to have to do this at the end of the class
declaration:
unittest
{
ArrayList!int al1;
ArrayList!uint al2;
...
}
But there's no other way to do it. If D could implicitly do this, I would
like it, but it's not that big of a deal. In fact, you could probably
write a CTFE function that takes a list of types and instantiates them all
in order to make sure unit tests run.
This post was more of a "hey, look what's cool about unit tests and
templates!" than a complaint :)
-Steve
