On Monday, 27 January 2014 at 11:10:04 UTC, Alix Pexton wrote:
On 27/01/2014 4:15 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 1/26/14 8:08 PM, Jesse Phillips wrote:
On Monday, 27 January 2014 at 03:58:54 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
Yeppers. One other thought I had was to define a special
flag e.g.
--4c5ad7908c2aa1b3de32ea25968cdf49 that says "just run
unittests".
I really think it would be better to use
--4c5ad7908c2aa1b3de42ea25968cdf49 instead, it just makes the
intent
clearer.
I'm just saying it should not clash with any application
argument.
Andrei
Hows about making it so that unittests are only run if the
executable name has a "_ut" suffix, or some other special
name/convention?
A...
How about exposing the sybmol of the function that runs the
unittest, and having a "dunittest" tool for running the tests
stored inside a regular executable? (I think it's possible?)
