On Wednesday, 30 April 2014 at 15:43:35 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
This brings up the issue of naming unittests. It's becoming
increasingly obvious that anonymous unittests don't quite scale
A message structured like this would be awesome.
Unittest Failed foo.d:345 Providing null input throws
exception
Last but not least, virtually nobody I know runs unittests and
then main. This is quickly becoming an idiom:
version(unittest) void main() {}
else void main()
{
...
}
I think it's time to change that. We could do it the
non-backward-compatible way by redefining -unittest to instruct
the compiler to not run main. Or we could define another flag
such as -unittest-only and then deprecate the existing one.
I would like to see -unittest redefined.
